Fornits
Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform => The Troubled Teen Industry => Topic started by: Anonymous on August 27, 2006, 11:52:06 PM
-
http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-action.html (http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-action.html)
HR1258 Time for Recovery and Equal Access to Treatment in America (TREAT America) Act of 2005
Hello. I am writing to ask for your "NO" vote on HR1258, the
so-called "Equal Access to Treatment" bill.
That bill is just another attempt to force government agencies
and health insurance plans to pay for ineffective quack medicine
-- specifically for the failed "12-Step" treatment for alcoholism
and drug addiction, which 93% of the treatment centers in the
USA foist on their clients.
The 12-Step treatment has been repeatedly proven to be ineffective
and worthless, and even harmful. See:
http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-effectiveness.html (http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-effectiveness.html)
for more details on that issue.
It is blatantly illegal for someone to set up a cancer clinic that
"treats" its patients with cures that are based on cult religion
and quack medicine, and then to charge the government and health
insurance plans for the patients' "treatment". It should be just
as illegal to foist such quackery on alcoholics and addicts.
I would also like to see you place an amendment in some bill or
other that would require the FDA, NIMH, NIAAA, or NIDA, to do
Randomized Longitudinal Controlled Studies of drug and alcohol
treatment programs, to determine which work and which are a
fraudulent waste of money.
That wording is important:
"Controlled" means that there are two groups in the test: One gets
the treatment, and one does not.
"Randomized" means that the patients are randomly chosen to get the
treatment, or no treatment.
"Longitudinal" means that the test goes on for a "long time", like
preferably for a year or longer, to see how much holding power the
treatment has, and what percentage of the "graduates" from
treatment relapse after graduation.
The effectiveness of the treatment is determined by comparing the
outcomes of the treated and untreated groups, to see what
difference, if any, treatment makes.
The FDA, NIMH, NIAAA, and NIDA know exactly what "Randomized
Longitudinal Controlled Studies" means. They won't have any
trouble with that. They test lots of new medications and
treatments that way.
Neither Medicare nor the health insurance industries should have
to pay for ineffective treatment programs, or for voodoo medicine.
If the FDA, NIMH, NIAAA and NIDA actually test the treatments for
alcoholism and drug addiction that people have been paying for
(and not getting cured by), and weeds out the frauds, fakes, and
quacks, then perhaps we can move on to some other things that
actually work, just for a change. And we can end a lot of criminal
fraud. And we can save some wasted money.
And it would be wise to put a criminal penalty in the law for
tampering with or sabotaging the testing of the substance abuse
treatments, or for fabricating false results. Considering the
immense amounts of money that are at stake here, some people will
be tempted to change the results by giving free drinks or drugs
to "the other group", and causing them to relapse. There must be
statutes barring such behavior, and penalties for such conduct.
Another aspect of the needed changes is to require treatment
centers to honestly report their success rates in their
advertising, rather than the completely false statements that
they issue now, like "80% of our graduates stay clean and sober",
without revealing that only 10% of the patients ever "graduate",
and without revealing that they only polled their graduates once,
a month after graduation.
Thank you for your time.
-
WTF? AA is voluntary. It's not for everyone, but it has helped a great many alcoholics live sober lives. It also doesn't get involved in political causes. I'm not sure what AA has to do with this bill or these treatment centers you are talking about.
-
WTF? AA is voluntary. It's not for everyone, but it has helped a great many alcoholics live sober lives. It also doesn't get involved in political causes. I'm not sure what AA has to do with this bill or these treatment centers you are talking about.
-
WTF is up with your cute little poll and what does AA have to do with the treatment programs you are opposing? AA is voluntary and non-political. It may not be for you, it's definitely not for everyone, but it has helped huge numbers of alcoholics in recovery. That's "bad for society?"
-
WTF is up with your cute little poll and what does AA have to do with the treatment programs you are opposing? AA is voluntary and non-political. It may not be for you, it's definitely not for everyone, but it has helped huge numbers of alcoholics in recovery. That's "bad for society?"
You're completely wrong. If you can show me just one study that shows AA "works", I'll eat my shorts.
And it's not voluntary. People are court ordered to attend every day. The 12 Steps are used in countless treatment centers all over the world. It's a cult and a farce. Do some research and then come talk to me about the "good" that AA does.
-
I may be missing something here but what is the problem with AA? I thought it helped a lot of people who genuinely had addiction problems & voluntarily sought help. Moreover it is an affordable option for all of the people who cannot afford rehab programmes.
Just because it has been warped by crazy cults and by an industry which forces kids into all kinds of crazy situations does not mean that it is by definition bad and damaging. Wasn't the original message of AA to take what helps and apply it to your life?
I would be strongly opposed to sending any kid to AA based programme but there is a difference between a kid who is forced to confess things they are not comfortable with and an adult who has a dependency on any drug and is seeking some kind of help and support from people who have a genuine insight into his or her issue.
-
It makes sense to get the "no" vote for this bill. The government being required to funnel money to treatment centers, just because they fall under the banner of providing "drug treatment" services using the AA/NA model, is just going to lead to the further development of these quack facilities that we all agree should be closed down.
However, let's not completely sell out the AA method when the person using it is a) an adult and b)doing it voluntarily. I realize that it may not be the method but the person that causes the anecdotal successes, a placebo effect if you will. That said, in certain instances it is an effective placebo.
-
***I would be strongly opposed to sending any kid to AA based programme but there is a difference between a kid who is forced to confess things they are not comfortable with and an adult who has a dependency on any drug and is seeking some kind of help and support from people who have a genuine insight into his or her issue.
If you want insurance money for your 'addictions treatment' in a program, it must be AA/NA, to my knowledge.
Kids are required to divulge the extent of their use when they enter a program. If a kid has only experimented with pot a few times s/he will be labeled an addict or with addictive personality and required to attend regular AA/NA meetings for the duration of their stay in an EGP/TBS. You have to be a saint or a good liar to avoid participation in AA.
As someone else mentioned, many are forced into AA.
It has become the industry standard for substance abuse treatment. When I was in school it was the only program an SAC could refer to.
AA reportedly has a 5 (or 6%) success rate. Before we shell out hard earned tax dollars, shouldn't we have the efficacy studies suggested?
-
It makes sense to get the "no" vote for this bill. The government being required to funnel money to treatment centers, just because they fall under the banner of providing "drug treatment" services using the AA/NA model, is just going to lead to the further development of these quack facilities that we all agree should be closed down.
However, let's not completely sell out the AA method when the person using it is a) an adult and b)doing it voluntarily. I realize that it may not be the method but the person that causes the anecdotal successes, a placebo effect if you will. That said, in certain instances it is an effective placebo.
As long as they know that. But they don't. AA doesn't tell them that. AA says it's the only way. They pity the poor souls who just can't "grasp this program of rigorous honesty". It teaches people that they're powerless. It teaches them that the next relapse will kill them. It forces confession (strongly urges through group and sponsor pressure w/ threats of relapse and death if they're not) to people that aren't trained to handle some of the intense personal shit people can get into. It teaches that the ego and sense of self is a bad thing, except when it comes to meetings and working a program, then it's just fine to be selfish as hell and go to 5 meetings a week and if the spouse complains? Send her to Alanon. The kids? Get 'em in Alateen.
f you want insurance money for your 'addictions treatment' in a program, it must be AA/NA, to my knowledge.
Kids are required to divulge the extent of their use when they enter a program. If a kid has only experimented with pot a few times s/he will be labeled an addict or with addictive personality and required to attend regular AA/NA meetings for the duration of their stay in an EGP/TBS. You have to be a saint or a good liar to avoid participation in AA.
As someone else mentioned, many are forced into AA.
It has become the industry standard for substance abuse treatment. When I was in school it was the only program an SAC could refer to.
AA reportedly has a 5 (or 6%) success rate. Before we shell out hard earned tax dollars, shouldn't we have the efficacy studies suggested?
Deb, you're spot on. AA's been around for what, 70 years now? You'd think someone somewhere would be able to produce just ONE study that shows that AA is beneficial and not detrimental.
-
So lemme make sure I got this. The anti-programmies on this forum advocate "community based treatment" as the preferred alternative to wilderness/RTC/TBS programs. Community-based treatment often includes therapy sessions AND a support group of some kind. AA/NA are the most widely available, regardless of how successful they are or are not. In bigger cities, you might find SOS groups or some of the alternatives, but I doubt you can find any research showing those are any more effective than the 12-step model.
So the conclusion is what? Don't send kids to "programs," but don't send them to community-based support groups either, at least not ones based on the 12-step model. Hell, don't send them to therapists either, because they don't have a great success rate either.
Did it ever occur to anyone that the reason the statistics on substance abuse recovery are so bad might simply be that it's a damn difficult problem to overcome?
If you don't like AA/NA, then don't go to the meetings. It's that simple. If you are truly an addict, you will eventually realize you need to do SOMETHING. Addiction may or may not kill you, but it sure makes life a lot more difficult in the long run.
-
If you don't like AA/NA, then don't go to the meetings. It's that simple. If you are truly an addict, you will eventually realize I want you to do SOMETHING. Addiction may or may not kill you, but it sure makes life a lot more difficult in the long run.
Not the issue we're discussing. I'm pretty sure people will do what works for them and AA seems to work, sometimes, for some small percentage of the population. Not what I would want for my family member.
The issue is- tax dollars for programs that aren't "evidence based", just like the industry. Oh shudder... can you imagine our tax dollars going for TBS/EGPs?
- I would also like to see you place an amendment in some bill or
other that would require the FDA, NIMH, NIAAA, or NIDA, to do
Randomized Longitudinal Controlled Studies of drug and alcohol
treatment programs, to determine which work and which are a
fraudulent waste of money.-
It appears that AA indeed falls into the "fraudulent waste of money" catagory, for the time being.
-
So lemme make sure I got this. The anti-programmies on this forum advocate "community based treatment" as the preferred alternative to wilderness/RTC/TBS programs. Community-based treatment often includes therapy sessions AND a support group of some kind. AA/NA are the most widely available, regardless of how successful they are or are not. In bigger cities, you might find SOS groups or some of the alternatives, but I doubt you can find any research showing those are any more effective than the 12-step model.
First, I'm speaking about my opinion. I do not speak for this site or any other 'anti-prorammies'. Second, lemme make sure I got this. You don't even care if the AA model is successful or not, there's just nothing else and anything is better than nothing, right? Don't bother me with the facts, I have my opinions. Prof. George E. Vaillant, a Member of the Board of Trustees of Alcoholics Anonymous World Services, Inc., did an 8 year long study of AA and found that not only did AA not work, it actually had the highest death rate of any of the treatments studied.
http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-eff ... ant_deaths (http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-effectiveness.html#Vaillant_deaths)
[So the conclusion is what? Don't send kids to "programs," but don't send them to community-based support groups either, at least not ones based on the 12-step model. Hell, don't send them to therapists either, because they don't have a great success rate either.
No, what I'm hoping to do is get at the actual root cause of this shit. Use community based programs(for those that really need them, for the most part parents just need to pay more attention to being a parent than earning a buck, seriously), but let's start to re-examine the 70 year old methods based on the tyrannical rantings of a lunatic narcissist, actually two lunatic narcissists if you count Frank Buchman's Oxford Group, on which Bill Wilson based AA? I've asked anyone to find a study, one legitimate study that says that AA is effective. No one can. There isn't one because it's not. It has the exact same success rate as spontaneous remission.....doing nothing. And at least with doing nothing no harm is done....primum non nocere.
http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-eff ... l#Brandsma (http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-effectiveness.html#Brandsma)
In spite of the scarcity of good, properly run controlled longitudinal studies of the effectiveness of Alcoholics Anonymous, there are still several tests and studies which were done properly, and give us a good idea of what is happening.
There is also experimental evidence that the A.A. doctrine of powerlessness leads to binge drinking. In a sophisticated controlled study of A.A.'s effectiveness (Brandsma et. al.), court-mandated offenders who had been sent to Alcoholics Anonymous for several months were engaging in FIVE TIMES as much binge drinking as another group of alcoholics who got no treatment at all, and the A.A. group was doing NINE TIMES as much binge drinking as another group of alcoholics who got rational behavior therapy.
Those results are almost unbelievable, but are easy to understand -- when you are drunk, it's easy to rationalize drinking some more by saying,
"Oh well, A.A. says that I'm powerless over alcohol. I can't control it, so there is no sense in trying. I'm doomed, because I already took a drink. I'm screwed, because I already lost all of my sober time. Might as well just relax and enjoy it. Pass that bottle over here, buddy."
It's also easy to rationalize taking the first drink with,
"I'm powerless. I can't help it. The Big Book says that I have no defense against those strange mental blank spots when I'll drink again. Bottoms up!"
Dr. Jeffrey Brandsma and his associates Dr. Maxie Maultsby (co-inventor of Rational Behavior Therapy) and Dr. Richard J. Welsh
Let's change the way we view drugs and alcohol. Let's stop demonizing and trying to moralize it, that only creates more problems. Let's re-examine our approach to those that legitimately do have problems. What we've been doing hasn't worked and has ended up with such disastrous consequences. Let's stop all this nonsense and start talking reality. Teach kids through example. Pay attention to them. Let's stop this "war" mentality and try and figure out how to deal with drugs and alcohol being around. It doesn't matter if they're legal or not, people are going to use. It's sort of like preaching abstinence (prohibition) to teens. I teach mine responsibility, both emotional and physical. I'd rather they wait, but they won't so I hand them a condom and put them on the pill .
Did it ever occur to anyone that the reason the statistics on substance abuse recovery are so bad might simply be that it's a damn difficult problem to overcome?
Yes, but why make it worse by diagnosing people as addicts who really aren't? Why make it worse by telling them they're powerless..and not letting them progress in their lives (programs, because it becomes their lives) until they believe it? Why make it more attractive to teenagers by demonizing it?
If you don't like AA/NA, then don't go to the meetings. It's that simple. If you are truly an addict, you will eventually realize y0u to do SOMETHING. Addiction may or may not kill you, but it sure makes life a lot more difficult in the long run.
I don't go. I used to. It screwed me up for years. It wasn't until I stopped buying their bullshit that my life truly, finally got better.
Check out those links above. Browse around that guys site. Love him or hate him you can't refute what he says. Many, many, many, many have tried. Read his never ending "Letters" section. I"m honestly not trying to pick a fight with anyone. I want a solution to all this. This whole mentality ruined my family for way too long. I've tried my damndest to figure it all out. It's taken me the better part of 6 years but the best answers I can come up with are found on that site and LEAP. I hope you can go read them with a truly open mind.
http://www.orange-papers.org/ (http://www.orange-papers.org/)
http://www.leap.cc/ (http://www.leap.cc/)
-
So is the objection to funding AA itself or the fact that it is mandatory? Are these studies based on programmes with a majority of participants who are being "made" to go or who want to be there? Because I would agree that if somebody is forced by the court to go, they may not have a substance abuse problem or they just may not want the help so fail. What percentage of people "fail" because they are not addicted to anything in the first place. Mel gibson for instance was made to go to rehab because he behaved like and asshole.
-
Shit, this post...Mon Aug 28, 2006 9:20 pm.....was mine.
-
I strongly disagree with forcing "treatment" on anyone, and that includes forcing people to attend AA or any other support group meetings, whether it's by court order or whatever. I would think the people on this forum would know that AA doesn't accept funding from anyone but it's members, so I don't what this bill has to do with AA in the first place.
You want to get support to defeat a bill that would force treatment on people, but the thread starts with a poll about whether a completely voluntary organization that tries to help addicts in recovery is good or bad for society. That's just fucked up.
You don't even care if the AA model is successful or not, there's just nothing else and anything is better than nothing, right?
I know firsthand that it is successful for some people. I really don't give a shit if the success rate is 1%, 5%, 20% or whatever. The statistics don't say WHO is going to get sober and who is not. If it works for me or someone I care about, that's all the fucking statistics I need.
BTW, if you can find a treatment method or support group that has a high success rate in helping people recover from true addiction -- let's say anything over 40 or 50% success rate -- then you will become very wealthy, because today there is no such thing.
Let's change the way we view drugs and alcohol. Let's stop demonizing and trying to moralize it, that only creates more problems. Let's re-examine our approach to those that legitimately do have problems. What we've been doing hasn't worked and has ended up with such disastrous consequences. Let's stop all this nonsense and start talking reality. Teach kids through example. Pay attention to them. Let's stop this "war" mentality and try and figure out how to deal with drugs and alcohol being around. It doesn't matter if they're legal or not, people are going to use. It's sort of like preaching abstinence (prohibition) to teens. I teach mine responsibility, both emotional and physical. I'd rather they wait, but they won't so I hand them a condom and put them on the pill.
Yes, and while we're at it, let's have love and happiness and world peace. You just don't fucking get it. You obviously are not an addict and have no experience with addicts.
I don't go. I used to. It screwed me up for years. It wasn't until I stopped buying their bullshit that my life truly, finally got better.
I assume you must've been coerced, so I'm not surpirsed you didn't get anything positive from it. If, on the other hand you went voluntarily -- the way it's supposed to be -- and continued to go even when you weren't getting anything out of it and it screwed you up for years, then I'm sorry to ask, but what the fuck is wrong with you? If I find myself doing something that is harmful to me or to people I care about, I try to recognize that fact and stop fucking doing it.
-
I strongly disagree with forcing "treatment" on anyone, and that includes forcing people to attend AA or any other support group meetings, whether it's by court order or whatever. I would think the people on this forum would know that AA doesn't accept funding from anyone but it's members, so I don't what this bill has to do with AA in the first place.
I put it up to start a discussion. I've actually been thinking about this entire situation a lot lately. Everyone talks about making programs safe when that's not the real problem.
AA doesn't, but the vast majority of treatment centers use the 12 Steps, Big Book, Twelve and Twelve adn then suggest the 90 meetings 90 days crap. They get funding.
You want to get support to defeat a bill that would force treatment on people, but the thread starts with a poll about whether a completely voluntary organization that tries to help addicts in recovery is good or bad for society. That's just fucked up.
I don't know if you're deliberately ignoring the content of my posts or if you just don't understand them. It's not voluntary. Even the vast majority of those that aren't court ordered are coerced into it.
I know firsthand that it is successful for some people. I really don't give a shit if the success rate is 1%, 5%, 20% or whatever. The statistics don't say WHO is going to get sober and who is not. If it works for me or someone I care about, that's all the fucking statistics I need.
Again, don't bother me with the facts, I have my opinions already. Well shit. How am I supposed to respond to that?
BTW, if you can find a treatment method or support group that has a high success rate in helping people recover from true addiction -- let's say anything over 40 or 50% success rate -- then you will become very wealthy, because today there is no such thing.
You're right. On this we agree. AA's success rate is not any higher than that of doing nothing and more often than not, it causes more damage. Again, are you having trouble with reading comprehension or are you ignoring AA's own studies and findings?
Yes, and while we're at it, let's have love and happiness and world peace. You just don't fucking get it. You obviously are not an addict and have no experience with addicts.
Yes, I get it all too well. I don't believe I'm an addict but that wasn't always the case and I'm sure there are a few people who would disagree with how I don't classify myself as one now. That's a typical response to anyone who dares question the dogma. You just don't understand. Give me a break.
I assume you must've been coerced, so I'm not surpirsed you didn't get anything positive from it. If, on the other hand you went voluntarily -- the way it's supposed to be -- and continued to go even when you weren't getting anything out of it and it screwed you up for years, then I'm sorry to ask, but what the fuck is wrong with you?
Well, it's a long story but the short version is....I was put in Straight when I was 16 for two years. Got out, got pregnant by another grad, got married, had another kid, got divorced and then fought my kids' grandparents (both my father and my ex's parents) and my ex for custody off and on for the better part of 15 years. They used Straight and AA as their weapons in court and out. I was only court ordered once to go to AA but if I stepped out of line (according to them) I was either dragged back in or threatened with it, so I went. I bought a lot of the shit for a while, that I was an alcoholic, powerless, the cause of all my families problems....never really bought the "steps" but a lot of the other shit. I've got two grown kids that turned out pretty good despite some scary years and the family trying to force them into treatment (over my dead body). The oldest scared the shit out of me for a while. Cocaine, ecstacy, heavy drinking but somehow she came through even though all the AA people and the grandparents were freaking out telling me she was going to die and accusing me in and out of court of being an unfit parent. This screw up kid who was going to die if not put away somewhere? She's just begun her LPN and is making a decent life for herself. We were actually talking about her grandparents tonight, she had to go over there. She thanked me for fighting for her, for her right to learn, to screw up completely and then understand what she wants and doesn't want for herself. It was amazing. Made all the shit I had to endure worth it. The fucking cycle was broken.
If I find myself doing something that is harmful to me or to people I care about, I try to recognize that fact and stop fucking doing it.
Me too. Thats's why I quit taking pills. That's what told me I wasn't powerless. I was hooked on painkillers for 8 years. Heavily. Ended up on 100 mgs/day. of methadone for it and before that I was taking 20 percocet daily. It was killing me, killing my liver, ruining my life. So I quit. Worst hell I've ever been through in my life. Would rather give birth ten times over than go through that again, but I did it. Because it was harmful to me and the people I cared about. Me. The person who was told they were going to die for twenty fucking years. Quit 100 mgs of methadone a day. Without AA. Without anything.
-
I was told not to come back to an open speaker meeting in Virginia. I was questioning the label "alcoholic", why do we always have to wear the label? You don't call a former smoker "smoker" after they quit. When everybody was talking about their "recovery" I asked a simple question, "when do you finally recover?" When you slide across the homeplate of Death, I infered. I was told not to visit those particular rooms again. That ended my dealings with AA, too damn dire and negative for me. Shit, who wants to carry another label around? 10 years sober, and no programs for me.
-
I know firsthand that it is successful for some people. I really don't give a shit if the success rate is 1%, 5%, 20% or whatever. The statistics don't say WHO is going to get sober and who is not. If it works for me or someone I care about, that's all the fucking statistics I need.
Great, but what about the vast majority that come in for a while but don't stick around? Most people who go to AA do that, you do know that, right? What about them? They're taught in there that they're powerless, that they can't do it without the help of AA (remember, rarely have we seen a person fail.....) and they're doomed to die. What about them?
What about Valliant's (AA's own Trustee of AA Worldwide) study that determined that AA was not only NOT successful but actually increased binge drinking?
Did you go and read any of those sites at all? Or are you just going to speak ignorantly of the issue. I don't mean that as an insult but how are you going to have a competent discussion about it if you won't even read it?
AA insisting it's the "only way".......
* ...he was insisting that he had found the only cure.
The Big Book, 3rd Edition, page 257.
* ...they had found the only remedy...
The Big Book, 3rd Edition, page 259.
* Any willing newcomer feels sure A.A. is the only safe harbor for the foundering vessel he has become.
Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions, William Wilson, page 35.
* "None of us in Alcoholics Anonymous is normal. Our abnormality compels us to go to AA... We all go because we need to. Because the alternative is drastic, either A.A. or death."
Delirium Tremens, Stories of Suffering and Transcendence, Ignacio Solares, Hazelden, 2000, page 27.
* 'Says an Atlanta executive who has been a member for 25 years: "I am deeply convinced that AA. is the only way."'
TIME, April 22, 1974
Popular A.A. slogans say:
* "A.A. is the last house on the street."
* "It's Our Way or the Die Way."
* "Work The Steps, Or Die!"
* If you don't Work The Program, then your fate will be "Jails, Institutions, Or Death".
Here, Bill talks about prospects who are invited to join A.A.:
Some of them may sink and perhaps never get up, but if our experience is a criterion, more than half of those approached will become fellows of Alcoholics Anonymous.
The Big Book, 3rd Edition, William G. Wilson, page 163.
Note that there is no third choice: either sink or join A.A.. Recovery without A.A. is not considered possible. (Also note that the claimed success rate -- "more than half" -- is untrue.)
-
Here's why this issue is so important to me lately. I've been around here for a long time. I was in Straight, thought they closed down and found out about 5 or 6 years ago that they didn't. They mutated and multiplied and spread out like a cancer all over the place. People have been working hard to shut down this program or that, regulate, mediate, moderate and otherwise "fix" this problem. My life has finally gotten to a point where I'm truly happy. Took a lot to get here. All that I mentioned above and much more, including a separation (I've been married to my second husband for 15 years) and a half-hearted suicide attempt about a year ago. I've seen my kids go through some horrendous shit. Mostly through no fault of their own, but a boatload of their self-created struggles and they're really turning into amazing young adults. I've been able to see this from a perspective most program parents can't, both sides. So anyway.....I've really been searching lately for what the "solution" is. The answer. The panacea. I can't find one because there isn't one and what we've been doing has not been working. It's making things worse and the worse it gets the harder these people seem to come down. More programs, different programs,better programs.....but the all revolve around the same flawed philosophy. I think it's going to take this major kind of adjustment in the way that people in this country look at these issues; treatment and prohibition. Nothing will change until that happens.
This is the way I see it. This whole mentality started creeping in little by little, flying under the radar of easily recognizable cults and totalitarian thinking. AA was doing a 'great service' (getting those damn drunks off the street), proclaiming itself non-religious (while it is clearly founded on not only a religion, but a religious cult) and doing good deeds for mankind. Slowly it grew. You heard about every success story, but you never heard about the vast majority that AA did not help and never heard about any that it harmed. It simmered for about 30 years or so. Then in the 70s it begins to get some teeth. Nixon takes his hard political stance and declares a War on Drugs. It gains more support and is really the only game in town, so who's gonna oppose any "success, right? The 80s, Reagan, Just Say No. Nancy Reagan came to Straight during the time I was there, declared it a huge success. Bush I made a video endorsing it. This was after many of the abuse cases had been reported and many verified. Other programs pop up, different names, same names (most places got shut down and reopened under different names or in different states).
Sooooo, now that I've really bored you to death. My point to all this is that we've been doing the same thing since 1935 and it hasn't worked. It hasn't improved. It's spun out of control and it's time for some common sense and some fucking reality in the conversations.
-
Ok, one more thing and I'll shut up for the night. Sorry, insomnia.
What would have happened to that precious daughter of mine had she believed the bullshit at the handful of NA meetings her dad made her attend when she lived with him for a few weeks? How would that have effected her self image for the rest of her life? AA doesn't hurt?? Bull fucking shit!!!!
I guess I'm getting tired. This mentality has got to change or nothing will so I guess I'm thirsty for someone to talk intelligently, calmly and civilly about this. I mean, what else is there to discuss really.
-
I'm glad to hear you got you life back together. Doing it on your own is as good as anything else, as long as it's working for you. If you don't feel powerless over your addictions, that's great. It isn't necessarily true for the rest of us, so what's the big deal if we do it a different way? Why do people want to trash that?
-
I'm glad to hear you got you life back together. Doing it on your own is as good as anything else, as long as it's working for you.
My life was screwed up BY AA and Straight. I never had a drug problem to begin with. They made me believe I did. I started taking the percs for legit pain...had two jaw surgeries and a lumbar surgery but because of what they kept drilling into my head about being powerless and an addict, I behaved like one. Once I stopped buying into the bullshit, I was able to stop.
If you don't feel powerless over your addictions, that's great. It isn't necessarily true for the rest of us,
Yes it is.
so what's the big deal if we do it a different way? Why do people want to trash that?
You didn't read my previous posts, did you? I've stated what the big deal is. AA lies and is dangerous. I don't want to trash anything except the misconception that AA is helpful. I want to expose you to the truth. YOu don't seem to want to even think about it though. I've given you well thought out, rational answers and asked well thought out, rational questions. You come back with, "I know firsthand that it is successful for some people. I really don't give a shit if the success rate is 1%, 5%, 20% or whatever. The statistics don't say WHO is going to get sober and who is not. If it works for me or someone I care about, that's all the fucking statistics I need." No discussion of any of the facts or points that I brought up. You refuse to even entertain a point of view other than your own, hell you won't even go read those sites I linked to.
I really would like to have a discussion about it, not an exchange of anecdotes.
-
I was told not to come back to an open speaker meeting in Virginia. I was questioning the label "alcoholic", why do we always have to wear the label? You don't call a former smoker "smoker" after they quit.
There are lots of different 12-step groups with lots of different styles. Most of the ones I've been to would always tell you "keep coming back" (it's one of the slogans), not "don't come back."
I know plenty of ex-smokers who know from their own experience that all it takes is to buy a pack and have the first one and they will be right back where they were. The same is true for many others recovering from other addictions. Call it whatever you want -- "ex-smoker," "recovering smoker" or whatever -- it's just a phrase to describe someone who doesn't smoke but is somehow different from others who never smoked at all. It's exactly the same as recovery from any other addiction. I call it being in recovery, which to me means being at greater risk of habitually doing harmful things than someone who never had an addiction in the first place.
When everybody was talking about their "recovery" I asked a simple question, "when do you finally recover?" When you slide across the homeplate of Death, I infered. I was told not to visit those particular rooms again. That ended my dealings with AA, too damn dire and negative for me. Shit, who wants to carry another label around? 10 years sober, and no programs for me.
Another slogan I hear a lot at meetings is "take what you need and leave the rest." For some people, that includes leaving behind the idea that you will always need the fellowship. I meet plenty of people who only come to a meeting on a big anniversary -- 1 year, 5 years, etc. There must be many more who never come back even for that. That doesn't mean they aren't sober and it doesn't mean they weren't helped by their experiences in AA. Only the individual can know what he needs and doesn't need.
-
There are lots of different 12-step groups with lots of different styles. Most of the ones I've been to would always tell you "keep coming back" (it's one of the slogans), not "don't come back."
Right, but that's just it. They tell you to keep coming back and you'll DIE if you don't. They say that a lot. Here's something I'd like an explanation for. Everyone that I came into contact with in AA told me that I was an alcoholic and an addict. When I run into these very same people today and tell them that I don't go to AA and my life is great, I'm 'sober' (by my definition) and I really have no major complaints they tell me "well, you probably never really were an alcoholic in the first place". The same people?? A lot of them. That's some loophole.
I know plenty of ex-smokers who know from their own experience that all it takes is to buy a pack and have the first one and they will be right back where they were.
Right, so don't. Ever. That's the solution. Read this and let me know what you think.
http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-addmonst.html (http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-addmonst.html)
The same is true for many others recovering from other addictions. Call it whatever you want -- "ex-smoker," "recovering smoker" or whatever -- it's just a phrase to describe someone who doesn't smoke but is somehow different from others who never smoked at all.
No, it's not just a label. It's a way of thinking about yourself and others and because he rejected it he was asked not to return. Can't have any criticall thinkers running around now can we?
Another slogan I hear a lot at meetings is "take what you need and leave the rest."
But that's not really how it works, is it? If you have a sponsor and 'work your steps' and 'do a "Step 5" you can't really do that.
For some people, that includes leaving behind the idea that you will always need the fellowship. I meet plenty of people who only come to a meeting on a big anniversary -- 1 year, 5 years, etc. There must be many more who never come back even for that. That doesn't mean they aren't sober and it doesn't mean they weren't helped by their experiences in AA.
doesn't mean they were either. More likely that they realized that what they were doing wasn't worth it anymore. They decided not to pick up another drink. Period.
Only the individual can know what he needs and doesn't need.
Try having a new person tell their sponsor that and see how well it goes over.
-
Yeah, don't get me wrong, I'm not pissing on AA, it just wasn't a good fit for me. If I were overcome by a hellish gin jones, I would hope to keep enough presence of mind to find a meeting. Alcoholic isn't a term I apply to myself - I'm only an alcoholic when I pour booze into my system. I am aware of being different, though. Once you're a pickle, you'll never be a cucumber again.
It was an old -timer who told me to go to a speaker's meeting and give the open discussions a miss for a while, keep my mouth shut and my ears open. It really caused some shit when I told them I would try to avoid a full recovery, if Death was at the finish line. A few people probably jumped off the wagon. I stayed with it until something got me, and AA ruined drinking for me. It's hard to drink with a bellyful of AA.
-
Yeah, don't get me wrong, I'm not pissing on AA, it just wasn't a good fit for me.
I'm not either, really. I'm just trying to get at the truth and to the crux of this teen help problem and I keep coming back to this mentality as being the root cause. I honestly am trying to have a rational discussion about it because I think it's that important to the issue that has effected my life so deeply.
-
Good morning Anne. I've been thinking about this a lot and I think I understand more about this HR bill and I oppose it. There is no reason for insurance companies to cover costs of anything associated with AA, NA, or any other 12-step program, because there are no costs to cover.
I am aware that most outpatient recovery programs incorporate the 12-steps or refer (coerce?) participants to attend meetings. I have been to meetings where people showed up with their pieces of paper needing a signature to show that they were there. Most of them probably didn't want to be there. Some of them had no desire to be sober. I found that to be uncomfortable for me, so I found another meeting that was truly voluntary, the way it's supposed to be.
I can't begin to imagine everything you went through, but from what I have read about Straight, it's pretty clear you went through a lot of hell and abuse. If forced AA attendance was part of that, then I can understand why you feel the way you do about it.
Only you can decide if you are or were an addict. If you say you weren't, then you weren't. Only the individual can decide if their lives have become unmanageable. Only the individual can decide if they are powerless or not. "The only requirement for membership is a desire to stop drinking/stop using." Anyone who does not have that desire is wasting their time at meetings. People whose drinking or using hasn't caused any problems in their lives are wasting their time at meetings.
It has to be voluntary. Anything that is involuntary is guaranteed to fail. Maybe that's why the studies mentioned in the orange reports came out as they did -- all the subjects were forced to participate.
Maybe that's why there is so little data on the true effectiveness of the 12-steps. How can you track the progress of a group that is completely voluntary, anonymous, doesn't take attendance and doesn't keep track of how it's members are doing? If you bring in a researcher who wants to track and measure it, by definition that is changing the thing he's trying to measure. If I don't want to participate in his study, I'll just go to another meeting where they don't have guys in white lab coats trying to get people to participate in their study.
-
Good morning Anne. I've been thinking about this a lot and I think I understand more about this HR bill and I oppose it. There is no reason for insurance companies to cover costs of anything associated with AA, NA, or any other 12-step program, because there are no costs to cover.
Well, actually there are since the AA Steps is what most treatment centers use and then refer to AA for 'aftercare'.
I am aware that most outpatient recovery programs incorporate the 12-steps or refer (coerce?) participants to attend meetings. I have been to meetings where people showed up with their pieces of paper needing a signature to show that they were there. Most of them probably didn't want to be there. Some of them had no desire to be sober. I found that to be uncomfortable for me, so I found another meeting that was truly voluntary, the way it's supposed to be.
Yes, some go to get the paper signed. But a lot, i would venture to say most, are either pressured by family or go of their own accord but end up pressured into believing and buying into the crap because it's virtually the only game in town. Once someone walks into a meeting, even voluntarily, he's told what to think and how to believe. Subtlely at first but the pressure becomes greater and greater. They are told repeatedly that they'll die if they don't work the program. They'll die if they leave AA. That's unhealthy any way you slice it.
I can't begin to imagine everything you went through, but from what I have read about Straight, it's pretty clear you went through a lot of hell and abuse. If forced AA attendance was part of that, then I can understand why you feel the way you do about it.
Yeah, it was hell but it's over. What concerns me more is how this mentality came about and I trace quite a bit of it back to AA and how they believe and how they want anyone who walks through their doors to believe.
Only you can decide if you are or were an addict. If you say you weren't, then you weren't. Only the individual can decide if their lives have become unmanageable. Only the individual can decide if they are powerless or not.
Again, try having a new person say that to a sponsor and see how well that goes over.
The only requirement for membership is a desire to stop drinking/stop using."
That's what they say but that's not really true. The demand much, much more.
http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-bai ... nt_program (http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-bait-switch.html#treatment_program)
Anyone who does not have that desire is wasting their time at meetings. People whose drinking or using hasn't caused any problems in their lives are wasting their time at meetings.
True. But what about those that are pressured into going and they really have no problem at all? How many AA members do you think are going to say, hey man...you're not really an alcoholic. Go home. I've heard over and over again in meetings, "if you think you need to be here, you probably do". This program demands "rigorous honesty" and "turning your life over to a higher power". Your sponsor gives you the Big Book and tells you to follow it. "Those who have thoroughly followed our path". I could go on and on.
And you've ignored the points I brought up about the damage that AA does. What about the scenario of my daughter? She went to a couple of NA meetings, was told she was an addict, was told she was going to die if she left. What if she had believed that? What about someone who truly is looking for help and is told that AA in the only way and they'll die without it? You do'nt see the harm in it?
After 70 years I think they could find a group of new people who went there of their own accord to participate. It wouldn't be a bunch of people hanging arouond meetings in lab coats either. It would be very simple to conduct such a test.
-
But a lot, i would venture to say most, are either pressured by family or go of their own accord but end up pressured into believing and buying into the crap because it's virtually the only game in town. Once someone walks into a meeting, even voluntarily, he's told what to think and how to believe. Subtlely at first but the pressure becomes greater and greater. They are told repeatedly that they'll die if they don't work the program. They'll die if they leave AA. That's unhealthy any way you slice it.
"Pressure" is still a form of coercion. I personally believe every addict must own his or her own recovery. "Die if they don't work the program?" The phrase I'm most familiar with is that the path of addiction leads to either prison, insanity or death. I believe that. It's ok with me if you don't believe it. I also believe the 12 steps are not for everyone, and that programs like SMART may be a better choice for some people. Unfortunately, not everyone has lots of choices, depending on where they live. For better or worse, the 12 steps are everywhere, so if someone is truly an addict and can find an interpretation of the 12 steps that works for him, I think he's better off than going it alone.
Only you can decide if you are or were an addict. If you say you weren't, then you weren't. Only the individual can decide if their lives have become unmanageable. Only the individual can decide if they are powerless or not.
Again, try having a new person say that to a sponsor and see how well that goes over.
It depends on the new person and the sponsor. If the new person is someone who has lost his job, his driver's license and his marriage, and his substance abuse played a big role in all of that but the new person just doesn't see it, he will probably be told he's in denial. And he probably is. If the new person isn't really an addict, or believes he can moderate his use, he might be in the wrong place at the wrong time. A good sponsor should tell him to go back out there and see how it works out for him. And then tell him we're always here if you want to come back.
The only requirement for membership is a desire to stop drinking/stop using."
That's what they say but that's not really true. The demand much, much more.
http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-bai ... nt_program (http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-bait-switch.html#treatment_program)
I guess there are as many different interpretations and as many different types of meetings as there addicts. The stuff on that web page you mentioned is very foreign to my experience. Nobody ever pretended AA was about "medical treatment" and I have not experienced religious zealotry. Hell, most people I know in recovery aren't terribly religious and claim the group itself as their "higher power." Of course, if you go to a Christian-oriented meeting, everyone will be claiming God or Jesus as their higher power. If that's not what you want to believe, then you're in the wrong meeting.
And you've ignored the points I brought up about the damage that AA does. What about the scenario of my daughter? She went to a couple of NA meetings, was told she was an addict, was told she was going to die if she left. What if she had believed that? What about someone who truly is looking for help and is told that AA in the only way and they'll die without it? You do'nt see the harm in it?
On the contrary, I see a lot of harm in that. You said your daughter was forced to go by her father. Strike one. She was told she was an addict and would die if she left, and apparently you and she felt otherwise. Strike two. She was told that AA is the only way. Strike three. I find it disheartening to hear about experiences like that. I have no way of knowing how common or uncommon that is, but it has not been my experience.
The whole premise of the fellowship is addicts helping other addicts. That should include really listening to another person and having the guts to say "It doesn't seem like you're getting much value from this, have you looked at other options?" Some members may think AA is the only way for them, but are wise enough to recognize that it's not for everyone. I don't see any real motivation to indoctrinate newcomers. I'm going to come to this meeting, sometimes I'll talk, sometimes I'll just listen. You can come too if you want to, or not if you don't. I have nothing to gain or lose either way by your actions.
After 70 years I think they could find a group of new people who went there of their own accord to participate. It wouldn't be a bunch of people hanging arouond meetings in lab coats either. It would be very simple to conduct such a test.
I think it would actually be quite difficult to make it a scientifically valid study. I also don't think the results would be very encouraging to people who are seeking a "cure," because I truly belileve there is no cure, just remission. And how would you score the results? Sobriety is not the same thing as avoiding substance abuse, but I'd be willing to bet that any study would focus exclusively on using behavior.
-
***"The only requirement for membership is a desire to stop drinking/stop using."
No, not the case. One of the primary arguments in this discussion. Otherwise all the adults/kids who are court/program-ordered would be turned away.
-
"Pressure" is still a form of coercion. I personally believe every addict must own his or her own recovery. "Die if they don't work the program?" The phrase I'm most familiar with is that the path of addiction leads to either prison, insanity or death. I believe that. It's ok with me if you don't believe it. I also believe the 12 steps are not for everyone, and that programs like SMART may be a better choice for some people. Unfortunately, not everyone has lots of choices, depending on where they live. For better or worse, the 12 steps are everywhere, so if someone is truly an addict and can find an interpretation of the 12 steps that works for him, I think he's better off than going it alone.
How can you say that when AA's own study says that it was not helpful and in fact was harmful?
It depends on the new person and the sponsor. If the new person is someone who has lost his job, his driver's license and his marriage, and his substance abuse played a big role in all of that but the new person just doesn't see it, he will probably be told he's in denial. And he probably is. If the new person isn't really an addict, or believes he can moderate his use, he might be in the wrong place at the wrong time. A good sponsor should tell him to go back out there and see how it works out for him. And then tell him we're always here if you want to come back.
But that's not what happens and you know it. It's also not what the Big Book or any of the other AA literature says. And who is an AA sponsor to decide whether or not someone is in denail or is an actual addict or alcoholic?
I guess there are as many different interpretations and as many different types of meetings as there addicts. The stuff on that web page you mentioned is very foreign to my experience. Nobody ever pretended AA was about "medical treatment" and I have not experienced religious zealotry. Hell, most people I know in recovery aren't terribly religious and claim the group itself as their "higher power." Of course, if you go to a Christian-oriented meeting, everyone will be claiming God or Jesus as their higher power. If that's not what you want to believe, then you're in the wrong meeting.
Now I'm suggesting you're the one who's in denial.
On the contrary, I see a lot of harm in that. You said your daughter was forced to go by her father. Strike one. She was told she was an addict and would die if she left, and apparently you and she felt otherwise. Strike two. She was told that AA is the only way. Strike three. I find it disheartening to hear about experiences like that. I have no way of knowing how common or uncommon that is, but it has not been my experience.
But it's all too common and if you don't see it, you're not paying attention. All the AA literature and dogma deals with everyone that way.
The whole premise of the fellowship is addicts helping other addicts. That should include really listening to another person and having the guts to say "It doesn't seem like you're getting much value from this, have you looked at other options?" Some members may think AA is the only way for them, but are wise enough to recognize that it's not for everyone. I don't see any real motivation to indoctrinate newcomers. I'm going to come to this meeting, sometimes I'll talk, sometimes I'll just listen. You can come too if you want to, or not if you don't. I have nothing to gain or lose either way by your actions.
That's fine. You enjoy the social aspect of it. That doesn't mean it 'works'. That doesn't mean that what's written in those pages and practiced in those rooms is good or helpful.
I think it would actually be quite difficult to make it a scientifically valid study. I also don't think the results would be very encouraging to people who are seeking a "cure," because I truly belileve there is no cure, just remission. And how would you score the results? Sobriety is not the same thing as avoiding substance abuse, but I'd be willing to bet that any study would focus exclusively on using behavior.
No, it really wouldn't. And you're right, there is no 'cure' because there is no 'disease'.
-
And you're right, there is no 'cure' because there is no 'disease'.
Call it what you want and we'll just have to agree to disagree. I don't think of it as a disease, I think of it more like an allergy. Some people can use various substances for their whole lives and never have a problem. Others can't and they know it so they don't. With or without AA/NA or anything else, they just don't because they've tried moderation before and it just didn't work for them the way they hoped.
Opposing a House bill is one thing, but if you're trying to abolish AA/NA or any other self-help support group, it'll never happen. All it takes is two people who decide "I don't want to live like this anymore, let's help each other," and thus a meeting is born. Addicts helping each other is powerful. The dogma and the slogans and all that other stuff is really just window dressing to that basic premise.
-
Call it what you want and we'll just have to agree to disagree. I don't think of it as a disease, I think of it more like an allergy. Some people can use various substances for their whole lives and never have a problem. Others can't and they know it so they don't. With or without AA/NA or anything else, they just don't because they've tried moderation before and it just didn't work for them the way they hoped.
I don't have a problem with that analogy at all. A good friend of mine is allergic to shellfish. She adores shrimp but will not eat it. Ever. She understands the consequence of her actions.
Did you read this?
http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-addmonst.html (http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-addmonst.html)
http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-links.html (http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-links.html)
Opposing a House bill is one thing, but if you're trying to abolish AA/NA or any other self-help support group, it'll never happen.
I don't hold any illusions about that. This is just how I feel and what I've been thinking when trying to figure out how we got here.
All it takes is two people who decide "I don't want to live like this anymore, let's help each other," and thus a meeting is born. Addicts helping each other is powerful. The dogma and the slogans and all that other stuff is really just window dressing to that basic premise.
I have no problem at all with a social group of like minded people supporting each other, it's the cult dogma that I cant' stomach. And it's not window dressing. It's the very foundation of it.
-
I got involved in both AA and NA in the early '90s after a 28 day "rehab" stint. Yes I was pressured into it. One thing that I noticed when I attended an NA "group concience" (boring business meeting where the real decisions get made) was that everyone who showed up (except me) was either a treatment center employee or a state corrections department employee.
-
I got involved in both AA and NA in the early '90s after a 28 day "rehab" stint. Yes I was pressured into it. One thing that I noticed when I attended an NA "group concience" (boring business meeting where the real decisions get made) was that everyone who showed up (except me) was either a treatment center employee or a state corrections department employee.
And that's exactly why I think this is so worth talking about.
:tup: :tup:
-
Maybe some AA/NA and related meetings have been corrupted and/or co-opted by state or private treatment programs, which is a damn shame and is really contrary to AA's traditions.
Seems to be a symptom of this industry -- to swallow and corrupt anything it can use in the pursuit of the almighty dollar and the farce of "treatment."
-
Maybe some AA/NA and related meetings have been corrupted and/or co-opted by state or private treatment programs, which is a damn shame and is really contrary to AA's traditions.
Seems to be a symptom of this industry -- to swallow and corrupt anything it can use in the pursuit of the almighty dollar and the farce of "treatment."
AA's traditions are corrupt. It's not just the people, it's the basics and teachings of the program itself that suck. And this 'industry' was virtually created by the teachings and followers of AA.
-
I can't find anything in the AA literature that talks about behavior mod, escorts and holding people against their will in the name of rehab or treatment. THAT's the industry I'm talking about -- not the 'industry' of self-help or community-based support groups.
-
I have a question for anne. if adults go to AA voluntarily and it does help a percentage of them even if it turns out it is a small percent. What is the harm. Why not help fund it? i am not talking about forcing anyone to go. i am certainly not advocating it for kids and I hate tyhe whole tradition that straight seems to have set up. i dont get why people do this to their kids and the reason why i look at these boards and participate in the discussion is because i ma trying to figure it out.
But if some adults who have struggled with an addiction take it upon themselves to go and they feel that it is the only way to get things on an even keel and keep them there, where is the harm?
-
The point- AA started as a voluntary support group. It needs to stay that way.
There's not a thing wrong with people doing what they want, persuing whatever works for them.
Tax payers should not be asked to fund support groups, particularly when the support group is being forced on people as some kind of 'therapy' and there's no evidence of efficacy.
No funding for support groups that were intended from the beginning to be free to the public, who were supposed to be willing participants.
-
The point- AA started as a voluntary support group. It needs to stay that way.
There's not a thing wrong with people doing what they want, persuing whatever works for them.
Tax payers should not be asked to fund support groups, particularly when the support group is being forced on people as some kind of 'therapy' and there's no evidence of efficacy.
No funding for support groups that were intended from the beginning to be free to the public, who were supposed to be willing participants.
Yep. And the one study that was done revealed that not only did it not help, it was in fact harmful and dangerous......by Valliant's own findings. Why should there be funding for something that has absolutely no evidence that it works and could potentially be harmful to so many?
http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-eff ... l#Vaillant (http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-effectiveness.html#Vaillant)
http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-pro ... orrelation (http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-propaganda.html#correlation)
-
And the one study that was done revealed that not only did it not help, it was in fact harmful and dangerous......by Valliant's own findings. Why should there be funding for something that has absolutely no evidence that it works and could potentially be harmful to so many?
http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-eff ... l#Vaillant (http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-effectiveness.html#Vaillant)
http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-pro ... orrelation (http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-propaganda.html#correlation)
All this shows is that it's a bad idea to force people into some kind of treatment or program. And I doubt it would've mattered what kind of rehab the participants in the study were forced into.
There can be no public funding for AA, NA, CA or any other voluntary 12-step program. They don't want or need public funding or any other outside funding. They will not except such funding when it is offered.
"It is important for A.A. members to explain to the agency officials
and judges that A.A. is strictly self-supporting (see Tradition
Seven) and that A.A. members do not accept money for Twelfth
(or any other) Step work (see Tradition Eight, on nonprofessionalism).
We work with other alcoholics for our own sobriety, not for
money. It is our responsibility to make this clear to court-ordered
newcomers, too.
As A.A. members, we are not qualified to judge, endorse or oppose
any other program in the field of alcoholism, nor is it a good idea to
give the impression that we are professional, scientific experts. We
can help only with our own experience."
-- AA Guidelines: Cooperating with Court, D.W.I. and Similar Programs, Oct. 2002
-
All this shows is that it's a bad idea to force people into some kind of treatment or program. And I doubt it would've mattered what kind of rehab the participants in the study were forced into.
There can be no public funding for AA, NA, CA or any other voluntary 12-step program. They don't want or need public funding or any other outside funding. They will not except such funding when it is offered.
You're forgettting that the majority of 'treatment centers' use the AA method or some variation. Those places accept funding.
"It is important for A.A. members to explain to the agency officials
and judges that A.A. is strictly self-supporting (see Tradition
Seven) and that A.A. members do not accept money for Twelfth
(or any other) Step work (see Tradition Eight, on nonprofessionalism).
We work with other alcoholics for our own sobriety, not for
money. It is our responsibility to make this clear to court-ordered
newcomers, too.
As A.A. members, we are not qualified to judge, endorse or oppose
any other program in the field of alcoholism, nor is it a good idea to
give the impression that we are professional, scientific experts. We
can help only with our own experience."
-- AA Guidelines: Cooperating with Court, D.W.I. and Similar Programs, Oct. 2002
Bad idea to force people into 'treatment'. Especially when it's got virtually a zero 'success' rate.
And this? As A.A. members, we are not qualified to judge, endorse or oppose
any other program in the field of alcoholism, nor is it a good idea to
give the impression that we are professional, scientific experts. We
can help only with our own experience."
yeah, right. What a joke. Their literature (Big Book, Twelve and Twelve, traditions etc.) ALL state plainly that AA is the only way and you'll be signing your own death warrant if you leave.
-
Anne, it's painfully obvious you had a horrible experience with AA meetings, but were coerced into it as part of Straight. A meeting is only as good as its members, and I can just imagine that a meeting approved by Straight might have been full of Straight supporters and/or washed 'graduates.'
If you were to develop a serious problem with addiction and were seeking a volunteer support group, I would steer you away from anything involving a 12-step philosophy. It's pretty clear that due to your past negative experiences with AA, it is unlikely you would get any benefit from it. In that event, there are plenty of other support groups that might be more appealing.
For those that find the 12 steps helpful or useful, great. For those that don't, no problem. The court-mandated or program-mandated meeting attendence b.s. is a real problem, and one that many AA/NA attendees address for themselves by simply finding another meeting that doesn't include people who are forced to attend, or forced to listen to a bunch of b.s. like the things you apparently were told.
-
Ok, great. That's how you see it. I see it differently. I see it as harmful in and of itself. I don't care if it helps a 'few' people. IMO, it damages far more than it ever helps, is an integral part of the BM facilities and is a cult. Difference being, I have evidence to back that up.
-
AA's been around for what, 70 years now? You'd think someone somewhere would be able to produce just ONE study that shows that AA is beneficial and not detrimental.
A lot more than just one study. It doesn't take very long on Google to find them...of course, that requires motivation to search, read and get educated.
Here's just one link that references 11 studies published in peer-reviewed journals. Without subscriptions to the journals, you can only read the abstracts, but those summarize the findings.
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/ ... 93913133.x (http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1046/j.1360-0443.1998.93913133.x)
Here's another one, an essay on AA with references to more studies.
http://www.allfreeessays.com/student/AA.html (http://www.allfreeessays.com/student/AA.html)
Here's one from NIAAA (National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism):
http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/aa36.htm (http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/aa36.htm)
Another good resource is the American Council on Alcoholism (http://www.aca-usa.org (http://www.aca-usa.org)) which provides info on multiple alternatives to treating alcoholism, not just the AA approach.
In addition to research and statistics, of which I remain a skeptic (you can prove just about anything with the right "study"), there is lots of anecdotal evidence of both the effectiveness and the ineffectiveness of AA and the 12-step approach.
Here's one example, from a woman whose work I work I really respect:
"I found purpose in the 12-step programs the rehab introduced me to. Today, I have some problems with the way many treatment centers force 12-step ideology on people. I know that there are many whom it doesn't help -- and in this book, we offer a variety of options for recovery. For me, however, at that time, it did the trick. In the 12-step fellowships, I found that I could make friends without having to give them drugs and that I could be loved for who I was without being rich or famous."
-- Maia Szalavitz
You might recognize the name. One of her other books is advertised on the main Fornits page.
-
Penn and Teller Bullshit - Alcoholics Anonymous - the entire episode. If you haven't seen it, it's a must!
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 1419337301 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7676046531419337301)
-
and the really, really interesting discussion on Fark about it
http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comment ... nk=2270929 (http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comments.pl?IDLink=2270929)