the dangers of equating AA and programs

[Anonymous]

What I object to is your presentation of S.P’s viewpoint as the definitive, or only one. Yes, S.P. interprets V’s work one way, but recognize that V and the majority of scientists feel it means another.=us

Peele cites a lot more than Vaillant in that book chapter:
http://www.peele.net/lib/diseasing3.html

In any case, it was Vaillant's own words saying "there is compelling evidence that the results of our treatment mere no better than the natural history of the disease." not somebody's interpretation of Vaillant's findings.  Vaillant admitted AA does not work.  His is hardly the only study finding that, but it is the most significant when speaking critically about AA since he was a true believer.

More from Peele:

Why does everyone believe AA and related treatments for alcoholism are so tremendously successful? The universal praise for AA focuses on its successes and disregards its failures, while we hear little about the successful recovery of those who don't attend AA. People who overcome drinking problems on their own, despite their numbers, are not an organized and visible group on the American alcoholism landscape. For example, George Vaillant found that many of his alcohol abusers cut back their drinking — nearly all without treatment. But even a solid majority of those among Vaillant's subjects who quit drinking altogether did not join AA. Yet not one of the successful cases of remission Vaillant highlights in his book involves a person who quit a drinking problem without AA or treatment — Vaillant simply ignores the bulk of his data when it comes to his case studies.

In order to evaluate a treatment's general effectiveness, research must assign patients randomly to different treatments and/or to a group that receives no treatment (called a control group). Two psychologists, William Miller and Reid Hester, reported every controlled study of alcoholism treatment — that is, studies that employed various treatment and no-treatment comparison groups.54 These researchers discovered only two controlled studies of AA's effectiveness. Keith Ditman, a physician and head of the Alcoholism Research Clinic at UCLA in the 1960s, studied outcomes for three groups of alcoholics — those assigned by a court either to AA, to an alcoholism clinic, or to an untreated control group.55 Forty-four percent of the control group were not rearrested in the follow-up period, compared with only 31 percent of AA clients and 32 percent of clinic clients. In the other controlled study of AA, Jeffrey Brandsma and his colleagues reported in 1980 that those randomly assigned to AA engaged in binge drinking significantly more frequently at three months than those assigned either to the nontreatment control group or to other therapies.

Another study is available here:
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=26453#p322011

Interestingly in that study of court offenders it was found that those who credited AA the most were re-arrested the most.

AA does not work.  Plain and simple.  Just because some people went to AA and got sober does not mean AA caused them to get sober.  Statistically, they're better off with no treatment at all considering the increased likelyhood to relapse (Peele, et al) as well as the increased tendency to binge (Brandsma).  All in all, AA is not helpful and not harmless.  In point of fact, it's actually quite harmful when you consider it's prevalence in the treatment industry.  I'm sure many of the members of this site would agree with peele when he concludes (partially on this basis) that it would be "abusive" to force teens into attendance.

Indeed, he cites instances (albeit anecdotal) that AA might lead to suicide.  It would be interesting to have a study on this.  Ever read Kurt Cobain's diaries or his suicide note?  It seems that the primary reason he washed his mouth out with buckshot was because some fucking 12 stepper convinced him that he couldn't kick heroin on his own, was powerless, and needed to turn his life over to god as *A re-interprets.  He basically decided that if that was true, he didn't want to live as a slave so...  Now what if somebody had told him instead "you can quit heroin on your own, and here are some tips on how" or something to that effect... something to give him hope rather than to say "your only option is to submit your will over to us".  I know I'd probably kill myself in that situation.  Better a free man in the grave than living as a puppet or a slave.

Dear Stanton Peele,

I have spent the last two hours on your your web site, which I found from the Smart Recovery web site, and I am incredibly, gratefully, hopefully impressed. It's a sad world that does not make your name a household word.

Did you become a lawyer to get inside the legal battles in regards to addiction treatment and mandatory AA meetings? I have watched beautiful, vibrant, intelligent, yet addicted people become bland, reactionary, sober people due to forced involvement with 12 step groups.

My youngest brother, a 15 year old clinically depressed pot smoker, was required to attend 20 AA meetings in 30 days by an alternative high school for "troubled teenagers." One of the last things he said to his friends before he committed suicide was, "staying sober is too hard." AA had convinced him that smoking a joint was a fate worse than death, proved him powerless and addicted, and in his depressed state, he believed it. I wish I would have know about REBT, CBT, RR, MM, SMART or any of the other alternatives to 12 steps and "family systems therapy" back then...

Thanks for reading and best wishes,
Sonya Trejo

Source (as well as Peele's response):
http://www.peele.net/faq/aasuicide.html

Note that I am quoting him, not because he is some guru, but because he has some good ideas, like many others.  There is some truth in *A as well.  I consider all options, and read both sides, unlike odie, for example, who wrote:

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

So are you, new guest a closed minded stepper, or are you willing to objectively consider both sides of the coin?  Read Peele's chapter and see if it changes your mind a little.

[Anonymous]

I consider all options, and read both sides, unlike odie, for example, who wrote

Just want to point out that the person you quoted was "OPIE", not "odie," who is a registered fornits user, and may not appreciate the association with that POV.

Carry on...

[Anonymous]

I know you are quoting his words...but out of context with his ACTUAL, complete evaluation of his studies ommitted. Because you are not doing your own research, but simply restating the opinions of others, which they "back up" by selectively quoting and misrepresenting Vaillient's work, that is a predicable problem.

How is it misrepresented, and what is your source for stating that?

I’ve linked to, and said 7 times, my source is Wikipedia.
My other source is Vailent’s book.

You are misrepresenting Valient in a number of places.
Misrepresentation 1)

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.

You say Vallient wrote A.A. is no more successful than no treatment at all.

In fact, in what you quote Vallient is referring to his experience working in a clinic, NOT A.A.
(BTW, He's not saying that his network was no more helpful than no help, but that there's evidence to sugest that)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Natura ... _Revisited

Misrepresentation 2)

But then came the rub. Fueled by our enthusiasm, I. . . tried to prove our efficacy. Our clinic followed up our first 100 detoxification patients. . . every year for the next 8 years. . . . After initial discharge, only 5 patients in the Clinic sample never relapsed to alcoholic drinking, and there is compelling evidence that the results of our treatment mere no better than the natural history of the disease. (emphasis added”

By cutting and splicing GV, you allege he says only 5 percent of his A.A. clinical sample stopped abusing alcohol.

Wiki mentions that various websites (like the one you get your info from,) misrepresent GV’s data this way.
“Note that the figure of 95%—the number of clinical patients who relapsed at any time during the 8 year study—has been quoted on some personal websites as evidence that AA is ineffective.”
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:Qmc ... cd=1&gl=us

In FACT, in that quote GW refers to the study of a HEALTH NETWORK, not AA.
(BTW, he does NOT imply that 95 percent of his patients still abused alcohol after 8 years, just that they relapsed within that time frame.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Natura ... _Revisited

What he ACTUALLY writes is that after 8 years 34% percent reached stable sobriety, 29% had died, and 26% still were abusing. (3 times as many died as would have non-alcoholics) This sample was given unlimited access to a wide local array of mental health facilities/treatment options.

He ACTUALLY found that almost half of the alcoholics who ultimately stayed sober attended at least 300 A.A. meetings over 8 years (about once every 10 days) and AA attendance was associated with good outcomes in patients who otherwise would have been predicted not to remit.  Conclusion: “AA attendance was associated with a higher success rate” as was having a stable home life.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effectiven ... e_Vaillant.

[Anonymous]

You also might want to read this:

So if detoxification isn't the primary purpose of 12-step inpatient treat-ment, what is? One 12-step advocate lists the goals of treatment as follows:
   

(1) Treatment does not "cure" the disease—the expectation is that by insti­tuting an achievable method of abstinence the disease will be put into re­mission. (2) All therapeutic efforts are directed at helping the patient reach a level of motivation that will enable him or her to commit to this abstinence program. (3) An educational program is developed to assist the patient in becoming familiar with the addictive process, insight into compulsive behaviors, medical complications, emotional insight, and maintenance of physical, mental, and spiritual health. (4) The patient's family and other significant persons are included in the therapeutic process with the understanding that the therapeutic process does not occur in a vacuum, but rather in interpersonal relationships. (5) The patient is indoctrinated into the AA program and instructed as to the content and application of the 12 steps of the program. [emphasis added] (6) Group and individual therapy are directed at self­understanding and acceptance with emphasis on how alcohol and drugs have affected their lives. (7) There is insistence on participation in a longitudinal support and follow-up program based on the belief that, as in the management of all chronic disease processes, maintenance is critically important to the ultimate outcome of any therapy. This follow-up usually consists of ongoing support provided by the treatment facility as well as participation in community self-help groups such as AA, Narcotics Anonymous (NA), Opiates Anonymous (OA), and the like.lv

 

Put in plain English, this means that the purpose of "the treatment process" is to "indoctrinate" the patient into "the AA program" and into the disease-concept-of-alcoholism belief system. That is, the purpose of 12-step treatment is to convince the patient that he has an incurable "disease" from which he will never recover; that he is "powerless" over his alcohol con­sumption; that he will inevitably lose control if he drinks; that should he return to drinking, he will inevitably drink in a progressively more destruc­tive manner; that he is "in denial"; that he must not trust his own thoughts and perceptions; that he must abandon self-direction and turn his life and will over to God (or God's interpreter, AA); and that he must make a com­mitment to lifelong involvement in Alcoholics Anonymous, because the only alternative to such lifelong involvement is "jails, institutions, or death."

That is the purpose of 12-step "treatment." It really has very little to do with the problem of alcohol abuse. Rather, it's an indoctrination program designed to inculcate both distrust of self and learned helplessness ("power­lessness") in the patient, and to convince him that his only hope of salvation is to abandon self-direction and to plunge himself into lifelong participation in the religious program of Alcoholics Anonymous.

Never mind that every single premise upon which this indoctrination program is built is demonstrably false. As someone once pointed out, smoking is a behavior and lung cancer is a disease, just as drinking is a behavior and cirrhosis is a disease. Alcohol abuse (lifting bottles or glasses to one's lips and swallowing more alcohol than is healthy) is a behavior, not a "disease"—terming a behavior a "disease" broadens the term's definition so greatly as to render it almost meaningless. Thomas Szasz puts the matter thusly: "Excessive drinking is a habit. If we choose to call bad habits 'diseases,' there is no limit to what we may define as a disease."lvi

As well, drinkers are not "powerless" over their alcohol consumption—it isn't Satan controlling the muscles in the arm lifting the glass to the lips —and they can learn to control it."Loss of control" tends to occur only when individuals believe that it will occur.lvii

Progression of the "disease" is not inevitable, and a very high percentage of alcohol abusers (including those termed "alcohol dependent") eventually "mature out" and either achieve nonproblem drinking or abstinence without participation in AA or any treatment program.lviii

"Denial" is a Catch 22 concept, and as such is essentially useless except as a bludgeon in the indoctrination process—if you admit that you're an alcoholic, you're an alcoholic; and if you deny that you're an alcoholic, you're "in denial," which is evidence that you're an alcoholic. Either way, as with denials of witchcraft in the Middle Ages, you lose.

And, finally, participation in AA is hardly a ticket to salvation; the recovery rate in AA is no higher than the rate of spontaneous remission.lix

Because they've been thoroughly indoctrinated into the AA/disease­concept belief system, these facts matter not at all to those administering and conducting 12-step treatment programs. For them, having turned their lives and wills over to God, The Program has become a matter of religious faith; and even to question the premises of their belief system is blasphemous. They know The Truth—as revealed by Bill Wilson in the "inspired" Big Book. As well, they believe that their sobriety and their very lives depend on "carry[ing] this message" to those not yet saved, so they often carry that message with fearful zeal.

Source: http://www.morerevealed.com/library/coc/chapter8.htm

[Anonymous]

What I object to is your presentation of S.P’s viewpoint as the definitive, or only one. Yes, S.P. interprets V’s work one way, but recognize that V and the majority of scientists feel it means another.=us

Peele cites a lot more than Vaillant in that book chapter:
http://www.peele.net/lib/diseasing3.html

In any case, it was Vaillant's own words saying "there is compelling evidence that the results of our treatment mere no better than the natural history of the disease." not somebody's interpretation of Vaillant's findings.  Vaillant admitted AA does not work.  His is hardly the only study finding that, but it is the most significant when speaking critically about AA since he was a true believer.

i don't really have time to get into this, but those words are taken out of context. In that quote from his book "Natural History of Alchoholism" G.W. is refferring to his time in a health network, not A.A.

That sort of misrepresentation is repeated through-out the web, unfortunetly, because of Agent Orange and Peele. I  think Peele overstates his case by leaving out some info. For example, how sick were the alchoholics followed in the natural progression study, were they comparable to sickness levels of the alch's who sought treatment at Cambridge? Besides that I think he makes some very good points about alchoholism. He obviously knows nothing about cults, though.

The  study you bring up was done in the 60s, which is almost anarchaic in medical terms. It also did not follow alchoholics, as far as I am aware of, but individuals caught up in the justice system who apparently had a "alchohol involved" offence. They were forced to attend A.A. or therapy, or allowed to do whatever they wanted. Those forced into any sort of theray were more likely to be rearested than those not forced into therapy.

To play devil's advocate, if anything, that shows that forcing people into therapy, any type, especially if they don't have the problem they are getting therapy for, is ineffective, not so much A.A. is ineffective. Basically, that "sample" is "compromised."  That is the argument that would be made about that study.

I'm not saying I discount that study, I am just giving the other side of the coin.  IMHO, there is evidence supporting and discrediting A.A. It's a mixed bag. Project Match indicates A.A.'s effectiveness, f.e., while the one you mention indicates it's not.

anyway, i spend way too much time here on fornits...its a nice break, but i should get back to the real world. I appreciate that you seem to have a sensible approach to this.

[psy]

I’ve linked to, and said 7 times, my source is Wikipedia.

Which is only really good for topics that aren't controversial.

My other source is Vailent’s book.

That why you keep mispelling his name?

You are misrepresenting Valient in a number of places.
Misrepresentation 1)

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.

You say Vallient wrote A.A. is no more successful than no treatment at all.

In fact, in what you quote Vallient is referring to his experience working in a clinic, NOT A.A.

Actually, it was aa.  A study was done by a clinic yes, but the members were not in the clinic at the time of the study (though they were discharged from a 12 step treatment centr).  It was an 8 year outpatient study.  If you had read his book like you claim you would know that.  Here is his quote in context.  You can see he clearly says AA:

When I joined the staff at Cambridge Hospital, I learned about the disease of alcoholism for the first time. My prior training had been at a famous teaching hospital that from past despair had posted an unwritten sign over the door that read "alcoholic patients need not apply."   ...   At Cambridge Hospital I learned for the first time how to diagnose alcoholism as an illness and to think of abstinence in terms of "one day at a time."   ...   To me, alcoholism became a fascinating disease. It seemed perfectly clear that by meeting the immediate individual needs of the alcoholic, by using multimodality therapy, by disregarding "motivation," by turning to recovering alcoholics [A.A. members] rather than to Ph.D.'s for lessons in breaking self-detrimental and more or less involuntary habits, and by inexorably moving patients from dependence upon the general hospital into the treatment system of A.A., I was working for the most exciting alcohol program in the world.

But then came the rub. Fueled by our enthusiasm, I and the director, William Clark, tried to prove our efficacy. Our clinic followed up our first 100 detoxification patients, the Clinic sample described in Chapter 3, every year for the next 8 years.
...

Table 8.1 shows our treatment results. 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.

Such "Rigorous honesty" from you, absolutely.  Not a shred of misrepresentation there.

Misrepresentation 2)

But then came the rub. Fueled by our enthusiasm, I. . . tried to prove our efficacy. Our clinic followed up our first 100 detoxification patients. . . every year for the next 8 years. . . . After initial discharge, only 5 patients in the Clinic sample never relapsed to alcoholic drinking, and there is compelling evidence that the results of our treatment mere no better than the natural history of the disease. (emphasis added”

By cutting and splicing GV, you allege he says only 5 percent of his A.A. clinical sample stopped abusing alcohol.

He did say that.  He also said the results were no better than the natural history of the disease.

Wiki mentions that various websites (like the one you get your info from,) misrepresent GV’s data this way.
“Note that the figure of 95%—the number of clinical patients who relapsed at any time during the 8 year study—has been quoted on some personal websites as evidence that AA is ineffective.”

I don't see the word misrepresent.  Also, keep in mind that anybody can edit a Wiki.  Wikipedia doesn't exactly have accurate information on many cults and cult like organizations (not to mention programs). Their fanatical devotees tend to edit stuff.  Please cite your sources directly rather than wiki. It's not seen as credible in an academic setting and it's not credible to me.  You allege his data is misrepresented.  I get that.  You say some wiki editor implied (but did not state) his data has been misrepresented.  I get that.  What you haven't done is stated precisely HOW the data was misinterpreted.

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:Qmc0F0R0R0IJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Natural_History_of_Alcoholism_Revisited+%22Note+that+the+figure+of+95%25%22+wiki+george+vaillent&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

In FACT, in that quote GW refers to the study of a HEALTH NETWORK, not AA.
(BTW, he does NOT imply that 95 percent of his patients still abused alcohol after 8 years, just that they relapsed within that time frame.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Natura ... _Revisited

What he ACTUALLY writes is that after 8 years 34% percent reached stable sobriety, 29% had died, and 26% still were abusing. (3 times as many died as would have non-alcoholics) This sample was given unlimited access to a wide local array of mental health facilities/treatment options.

He ACTUALLY found that almost half of the alcoholics who ultimately stayed sober attended at least 300 A.A. meetings over 8 years (about once every 10 days) and AA attendance was associated with good outcomes in patients who otherwise would have been predicted not to remit.  Conclusion: “AA attendance was associated with a higher success rate” as was having a stable home life.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effectiveness_of_Alcoholics_Anonymous#George_Vaillant.

Wait.  Now you're saying he did study AA's sucess rate?  LOL.  That's a switcharound right there.  So you can cite that study to show AA works but I can't cite it to show AA doesn't work. I see.  Makes sense!

The fact of the matter is this: Vaillant did a study on 100 people discharged from his 12 step treatment center.  Out of these 100 people, 95% relapsed.  That is just as good as the spontaneous rate of remission.  So how, exactly can you say AA works?  Because some who abstained went to AA?   LOL.  It doesn't take a genius to figure out where the gap in logic is there.

Also consider that these folks were indoctrinated into AA in Vaillant's treatment center before they were sent into the wild.

But let's forget Vaillant, since you seem to say his data is misinterpreted.  Let's go to another study, like the one "S A T A N" quoted:

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=26586&p=323624#p323618

And about Project Match:

http://www.peele.net/lib/projmach.html <-- read that.

[psy]

To play devil's advocate, if anything, that shows that forcing people into therapy, any type, especially if they don't have the problem they are getting therapy for, is ineffective

Now there we agree 100%  However even with forced AA, you would think the outcome with the Brandsma would be slightly higher.  I mean...  Out of the court offenders for drunk driving you would figure a certain percentage would be alcoholics  and a certain percentage would want to get help.  How do you account for the increase in binge drinking for those who attended AA?  Forced treatment or no, you wouldn't expect it to actually make people worse, now would you.  Would that mean any forced treament makes people worse, or just AA?  That's an interesting point.  Maybe it's a bit of both, but I tend to believe that AA's concept of "one drink, one drunk" has a lot to do with it, telling people that they're powerless once they take even a sip.

Think about it.  You tell people over and over "you cannot control yourself".  They'll start to believe it even if it's not true.  If you were in a program i'm sure you saw it happen.

[Dr. Bob's Conscience]

Okay people, Bill and I got together last night at an undisclosed location and decided you all have too much time on your hands!  We both agree that we were egomaniacs in our day.  However, we DID find a way for US to stay sober.  The Big Book of AA was never meant to be a bible, just a text of our collaboration and a collection of stories of people who found sobriety through "our program of recovery."  To this day, it amazes us that this book EVER got published!  

Most hardliners sponsors instruct their charges to read the first 164 pages of the famous Big Book.  My story doesn’t even start until page 171; I found that insulting in the beginning, but eventually I got over it!  I believe my personal story has more relevance in today’s day and age because MY addiction included drugs – as they are so prevalent in today’s society.  Keep in mind that this book was written and compiled OVER 70 years ago!  Times change people and life must change with the passage of time.  It was never our intention to cause such controversy – we merely wanted to put something out there that helped US and we wanted others to find HOPE from our experiences.  Hence, the creation of the AA Big Book – this was our way of spreading the word of something that helped us overcome OUR addictions.

Is AA the ONLY way???  NO, many have found sobriety through other ways and other programs.  At the time of the creation of AA back in 1935, the life of an alcoholic invariably ended up with them being dead, insane, or in jail.  We were not fond of THAT outcome and sought to find other ways to keep an alcoholic off the booze, and/or drugs in my case.

Can AA be compared to a religion or a program – YES!  You can also compare apples to oranges.  Does a comparison change anything?  I think not.  Do we say a person can find contentment through working the steps as outlined in the book? Again yes, but times have changed and we must change with the times.  We had hope that our book would help others in the same way it helped us and freed us from our addiction.  

However, you can also find the same peace of mind, or contentment, in other books such as “the Four Agreements” by Don Miguel Ruiz.  This book also outlines a design for “living happy, joyous and free.”  We both found this book to be much less controversial and a much more simple approach to life.  Ruiz outlines just 4 simple steps or ideals – (1) Be impeccable with your WORD, (2) Do not take anything personally – good or bad, (3) Always do your best (understanding that your BEST might/will change from day to day, and lastly, (4) Don’t make assumptions.  It appears to be easier to remember just 4 simple steps rather than 12 convoluted steps

One thing both Bob and I agree on is the fact that statistics can be used to support ANY point of view.  Back in our day, the fate of the alcoholic was not good and those afflicted were considered people of little will power and alcoholism was not a disease – you were just considered mentally ill and destined to end up dead, insane, or in jail.  It was our hope that an alcoholic could recover the same way we did.  It really was not our intention to create a “one size fits all” program of recovery that would continue unchanged for 70+ years.

If people find comfort & solace in going to AA meetings, so be it.  We are not happy that the courts try to interfere with a program that was created on the basis anonymity and a principle of attraction rather than promotion.  Having the judicial system interfere with that anonymity is an atrocity in our opinion; forcing the program upon individuals was not something we foresaw at the point of creation.

Bottom line….
If going to AA meeting helps you stay sober, by all means, GO, if not, don’t go.  We pass no judgments, but we cannot speak for the members of Alcoholics Anonymous in the 21st century.  We CAN say that AA was not created to be a cult in any way shape or form, nor are we responsible for what happens in the meeting rooms of AA TODAY…or all the other A’s that have sprung from the original program.

[Anonymous]

Okay people, Bill and I got together last night at an undisclosed location and decided you all have too much time on your hands!  We both agree that we were egomaniacs in our day.  However, we DID find a way for US to stay sober.  The Big Book of AA was never meant to be a bible, just a text of our collaboration and a collection of stories of people who found sobriety through "our program of recovery."  To this day, it amazes us that this book EVER got published!

Ya... About that.  How much do you know about the details of how the Big Book was published (outside of the "official" AA version):


Excerpt:

On top of all of this, Bill Wilson stole the copyright of the Big Book when he filed for the copyright, claiming sole authorship of the book, when the book really had at least 50 authors, thus breaking his promise to all of the co-authors that the book would belong to the group. And then Bill blackmailed AAWS into giving him and Dr. Bob royalties for life in trade for that copyright, thus breaking his promise that the profits would go to "The Alcoholic Foundation".

Source: http://orange-papers.org/orange-aacoa.html

Bill died a very rich man.  The reason nobody blew the whistle is because if the copyright was looked into, it would be revealed that the big book was accidentally first published into the public domain, meaning it couldn't be sold by anybody.

Most hardliners sponsors instruct their charges to read the first 164 pages of the famous Big Book.  My story doesn’t even start until page 171; I found that insulting in the beginning, but eventually I got over it!  I believe my personal story has more relevance in today’s day and age because MY addiction included drugs – as they are so prevalent in today’s society.  Keep in mind that this book was written and compiled OVER 70 years ago!

Yup.  Them drugs have been around for a very very long time.  Not a new thing at all.  Ever read "a drug war carol"?
http://www.adrugwarcarol.com/

It's a nice history lesson on the subject.

Times change people and life must change with the passage of time.  It was never our intention to cause such controversy – we merely wanted to put something out there that helped US and we wanted others to find HOPE from our experiences.  Hence, the creation of the AA Big Book – this was our way of spreading the word of something that helped us overcome OUR addictions.

Well.  The actual motivations for the publication of the big book varies.

Is AA the ONLY way???  NO,

Well.  While that's one thing the big book says, it contradicts itself several in several other places.

Unless each A.A. member follows to the best of his ability our suggested Twelve Steps to recovery, he almost certainly signs his own death warrant. His drunkenness and dissolution are not penalties inflicted by people in authority; they result from his personal disobedience to spiritual principles.
Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions, William Wilson, page 174.

Some suggestion.  Do this or you will DIE.  It's more or less implied where not explicitly stated through various clichés that AA is the only way.

many have found sobriety through other ways and other programs.  At the time of the creation of AA back in 1935, the life of an alcoholic invariably ended up with them being dead, insane, or in jail.

Well.  Statistically that isn't quite true.  Most alcoholics recover spontaneously (eventually), with an equal or greater rate than with AA.  While there were no studies to that affect (that I know of) back then, there are now.

Again yes, but times have changed and we must change with the times.

That's heresy to most 12 steppers.

It was our hope that an alcoholic could recover the same way we did.  It really was not our intention to create a “one size fits all” program of recovery that would continue unchanged for 70+ years.

Well.  That's what happened, and I don't see AA complaining about it.  Indeed, i've talked to steppers who insist that the 12 steps can be applied to cure anything.  They're that deluded.

If people find comfort & solace in going to AA meetings, so be it.  We are not happy that the courts try to interfere with a program that was created on the basis anonymity and a principle of attraction rather than promotion.

Who is we when you say not happy?  Why is it that the Little Red Book encourages lobbying of the state, judges, and police officers, then?  Again, I don't see AA as an institution opposing this practice.

Having the judicial system interfere with that anonymity is an atrocity in our opinion; forcing the program upon individuals was not something we foresaw at the point of creation.

Oh really?

... they thought it a good idea to have a preliminary talk with his wife. And this became part of the way things were done in the early days: Discuss it first with the wife; find out what you could; then plan your approach. It should be noted, as well, that the alcoholic himself didn't ask for help. He didn't have anything to say about it.
Dr. Bob and the Good Oldtimers, Alcoholics Anonymous World Services, Inc., 1980, pages 82-83.

And this approach or similar doesn't continue today?  Are you aware of who started the practice of lobbying judges to sentence people to AA?  Something you might want to look into.

Bottom line….
If going to AA meeting helps you stay sober, by all means, GO, if not, don’t go.  We pass no judgments, but we cannot speak for the members of Alcoholics Anonymous in the 21st century.  We CAN say that AA was not created to be a cult in any way shape or form, nor are we responsible for what happens in the meeting rooms of AA TODAY…or all the other A’s that have sprung from the original program.

AA's origins and that of the Big Book are VERY debatable, especially what the founders intended.

In any case, If AA is to make progress, those who oppose such ideas such as forced treatment should take a stand on it.  Right now it seems as if even though AA is being "force fed" referrals, they aren't exactly minding it (or at least not being vocal about it).  Through silence, they're complicit in the practice.  There needs to be more of this kind of thing:

http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-pamphlet2.html

[Anonymous]

S A t A N, were you ever in a program, and what program was it?

[Anonymous]

S A t A N, were you ever in a program, and what program was it?

One that smelled of AA.  Does it matter to my arguments?

[Anonymous]

"Hey! What did you do last weekend?"

"I debated the merits of AA and Bill Wilson on the internet. It was great, you should try it sometime!"

"Um. OK. Yeah... sounds fun... I guess."

"Well it's because I was in a program, and so I don't like AA."

"What kind of program?"

"Program for troubled teens."

"Oh... seriously? That's rough, too bad for you."

"Yeah. Too bad for me...."

---awkward silence----

"Well. It's been great catching up."

Yeah, definitely. Hey, if you want to learn more about programs go to for-"

"Sure thing. Sorry but I gotta go"

"nits.com... Oh. Ok. See you later then."

[Anonymous]

"Hey! What did you do last weekend?"

"I debated the merits of AA and Bill Wilson on the internet. It was great, you should try it sometime!"

"Um. OK. Yeah... sounds fun... I guess."

"Well it's because I was in a program, and so I don't like AA."

"What kind of program?"

"Program for troubled teens."

"Oh... seriously? That's rough, too bad for you."

"Yeah. Too bad for me...."

---awkward silence----

"Well. It's been great catching up."

Yeah, definitely. Hey, if you want to learn more about programs go to for-"

"Sure thing. Sorry but I gotta go"

"nits.com... Oh. Ok. See you later then."

OMG that is so funny   :tup:  :tup:  :roflmao:  :roflmao:

[Anonymous]

I consider all options, and read both sides, unlike odie, for example, who wrote

Just want to point out that the person you quoted was "OPIE", not "odie," who is a registered fornits user, and may not appreciate the association with that POV.

Carry on...

I'm sure he would care deeply!! Who wouldn't?

[Froderik]

"Hey! What did you do last weekend?"

"I debated the merits of AA and Bill Wilson on the internet. It was great, you should try it sometime!"

"Um. OK. Yeah... sounds fun... I guess."

"Well it's because I was in a program, and so I don't like AA."

"What kind of program?"

"Program for troubled teens."

"Oh... seriously? That's rough, too bad for you."

"Yeah. Too bad for me...."

---awkward silence----

"Well. It's been great catching up."

Yeah, definitely. Hey, if you want to learn more about programs go to for-"

"Sure thing. Sorry but I gotta go"

"nits.com... Oh. Ok. See you later then."

OMG that is so funny   :tup:  :tup:  :roflmao:  :roflmao:

No offense to anyone I hope, but that was some funny shit.  :rofl: