Fornits
Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform => The Troubled Teen Industry => Topic started by: psy on December 27, 2008, 09:28:32 PM
-
From http://www.morerevealed.com/library/index.jsp (http://www.morerevealed.com/library/index.jsp)
Alcoholics Anonymous: Cult or Cure? (http://http://www.morerevealed.com/library/coc)
by Charles Bufe
From Library Journal
Bufe ( The Heretic's Handbook of Quotations , See Sharp Pr., 1988) scrutinizes Alcoholics Anonymous, delving into the organization's origins and development. Tracing its roots to the Oxford Group movement, which was a revival of the Church of England begun in 1833, he demonstrates how major tenets of AA are derived from Oxford Group principles. He includes colorful details concerning organization founders. In critiquing the 12 steps, which are the heart of the AA recovery program, he leans heavily on the work of psychologist Albert Ellis. Bufe considers the AA religio-spiritual emphasis anathema. He also objects to AA's espousal of individual culpability for alcoholism, which does not acknowledge socioeconomic influences. His conclusion is that AA is a quasi-cult, devoid of harmful excesses but demanding strict adherence from its membership. Despite his purported objectivity, his secular bias is very much in evidence. The appendix includes descriptions of secular-based alcoholic recovery programs, and also a secular version of the 12 steps. — Carol R. Glatt, VA Medical Ctr. Lib., Philadelphia © 1991 Reed Business Information, Inc.
From Independent Publisher
Charles Bufe tried AA in 1983, hated it, and kept drinking until 1985, when he achieved sobriety on his own. Clearly, Bufe has something of an ax to grind, but for the most part he grinds it fairly. (At worst, the author's skepticism is no more extreme than the zeal of some AA supporters.) Bufe poses two major questions - Is AA religious? Is it a cult? - and raises some interesting points along the way. He traces the program's religious overtones to the Oxford Group Movement of the 1930s. This movement, he argues, heavily influenced AA founder Bill Wilson. Bufe supports his thesis with detailed, if not always fascinating, quotes and parallels. He concludes that AA is religious, a label sure to rile members who consider their program a secular one. His other conclusion - that AA isn't a cult - is only common sense: AA has no leader, makes no financial demands, and does not use highpressure tactics. Bufe raises a timely point regarding the seemingly endless spin-off groups that have adopted AA's 12 steps as their own. How do victims, such as members of Incest Survivors Anonymous, profit from steps designed for the addicted? Appendices include secular alternatives to AA and the 12 Steps.
More Revealed: A Critical Analysis of Alcoholics Anonymous and the Twelve Steps (http://http://www.morerevealed.com/library/mr/newmr_0.jsp)
aka The Real AA: Behind the Myth of Twelve Step Recovery (See Sharp edition title)
by Ken Ragge
Alice Miller says,
"[More Revealed] will be a shock to many people because it reveals facts they would rather not know. But the shock, I have no doubt, will be a healthy one."
-- Alice Miller is famous as author of The Drama of the Gifted Child, For Your Own Good: The Hidden Roots of Cruelty in Childrearing and the Roots of Violence, and Breaking Down the Wall of Silence among other books.
Stanton Peele says,
"It's great. [T]he best overall analysis I've seen of the roots, nature, consequences, and failures of AA. ...summary of relevant research is excellent and to the point. ... remarkably well written."
-- social psychologist Stanton Peele is author of The Meaning of Addiction and The Diseasing of America.
G. Alan Marlatt says,
"interesting and informing reading ... I admire your courage to bring up the issues so clearly."
-- G. Alan Marlatt, Ph.D., Professor and Director Addictive Behaviors Research Center, University of Washington
Jack Trimpey says,
"a landmark in America's return to sanity in addiction care. ... the kind of book many would like to censor ...a reading responsibility for people in the helping professions."
-- Jack Trimpey, Executive Director of Rational Recovery Self-Help Network (now in 500 cities) in The Journal of Rational Recovery
And the public says,
"I have always sensed there was something wrong with twelve step programs. Since everyone else seemed to think they were great, I assumed I didn't understand them completely or perhaps I was in 'denial.' ... More Revealed has helped me understand the cultism and dependence inherent in these programs. If this information had been available to my mother 25 years ago, she might still be alive."
-- Martha White
"More Revealed is making its way gradually around our office and everyone thinks the book is about them, and they have this funny little way of getting ever so slightly possessive about it, as though they alone truly understood the secrets held within. So Ken, hordes of people think you've written a book just for them, and so you have."
-- Jeanine B., Florida reader
>"I hated this book. I used to think I was an alcoholic and there was nothing I could do about it except drink. Now I have to take responsibility."
-- John B.
"Brilliant"
-- Carol King, M.P.H., Yale University, author of Poverty and Medical Care
"After reading More Revealed, I now understand why AA members are among the most disoriented, desperate and lost callers I have handled."
-- Ron W., Suicide Hotline Counselor
"Those who read this book could die."
-- Thomas F., twelve stepper who found this book too frightening to read
"This book should be required reading for anyone who wants to be a therapist."
-- Erma Epple, MA
"It opened my eyes..."
-- Bonnie Guerra
"After reading this book I am more convinced that I must trust my own intuition more than anything else and march to the beat of my own drummer."
-- Carlos Grado, social worker
Twelve Step Horror Stories: True Tales of Misery, Betrayal and Abuse in NA, AA (http://http://www.morerevealed.com/library/rfhorror/rfhorror.jsp)
and 12-Step Treatment
edited Rebecca Fransway, Ed.
“Those in this book are incredibly brave. Instead of sinking into a hole (‘jails, institutions, or death’) after rejecting AA, as AA told them they would, they've stood on their own two feet and have dared challenge a sacrosanct American icon.” — Stanton Peele, Author of Love and Addiction, Diseasing of America, Resisting 12-Step Coercion
“Through this book, Rebecca Fransway is doing a great service to those who are considering joining or are being forced into the step groups; this collection of stories will reveal to them that ‘the loving hand of AA’ is often quite different from its wall-poster image. “The gift that Rebecca and the scores of personal accounts in this book offer is the knowledge that, no, you are not crazy; no, you are not alone; and yes, there is life after leaving the step groups.” — Ken Ragge, Author of The Real AA
“12-Step Horror Stories graphically reveals America's most under-reported scandal — that 12-step groups and 12-step treatment are usually ineffective and all too often are actively harmful.” —Charles Bufe, Author of Alcoholics Anonymous: Cult or Cure?
Resisting 12-Twelve Step Coercion: How to Fight Forced Participitation in AA, NA, or 12-Step Treatment (http://http://www.morerevealed.com/library/resist)
by Stanton Peele and Charles Bufe with Archie Brodsky
from the cover: Every year 1,000,000 Americans are coerced into Alcoholics Anonymous, Narcotics Anonymous, and 12-step treatment. Many of these people are neither alcoholics or drug addicts. Even for those who do abuse alcohol or drugs, coerced treatment does little good, and often amounts to little more than religious indoctrination. Coerced 12-step participation has, however, been successfully challenged several times in recent years in appeal-level courts on constitutional grounds (as a violation of the First Amendment's “Establishment Clause”). But the Supreme Court has yet to rule on the issue, and even in parts of the country where courts have ruled against it, 12-step coercion continues on a massive scale. If you, a loved one, or a client are being forced to participate in a 12-step group or 12-step treatment, this book will give you the information you need to challenge that forced participation — to resist 12-step coercion.
Saints Run Mad (http://http://www.morerevealed.com/library/saints/saints.jsp)
by Marjorie Harrison
First published in 1934, "Saints Run Mad" is a cricism of the Oxford Group written by an Episcopal Church lady that reads very well as a criticism of the 12-Step groups of today. While "Frank" (Frank Buchman) is gone and not a word is said any more of the Absolutes, the madness carries on today. Written from a decidedly Christian perspective, it exposes the arrogance, hypocracy, and harm done, not only of 70 years ago but in AA and the other Step groups today. You hardly need be Christian to appreciate her honesty, candor and wit. But if you are, even better. — Ken Ragge, Author of More Revealed aka The Real AA
Soul Surgery (http://http://www.morerevealed.com/library/surgery/surgeryfront.jsp)
by H. A. Walter
In the 1920s and 30s, a new convert to the Oxford Group could buy this do-it-yourself manual for a few pennies and immediately set to work winning new converts. Supposedly a Christian document, the essence of the book has nothing to do with Christianity but with Buchmanism and the details of their "scientific" program of "soul surgery" or cult indoctrination techniques. The basic fundamental "scientific" principles are greatly refined and still used in modern-day Step groups. — Ken Ragge, Author of More Revealed aka The Real AA
What is the Oxford Group? (http://http://www.stepstudy.org/downloads/what_is.pdf)
by The Layman With the Notebook
Another book written in the early thirties plainly shows where much of A.A. came from a few years before modern-day A.A.'s claim A.A. began. In the first few words, one will see A.A.'s "the spiritual principle of Anonymity" before there was an A.A. (the book was written anonymously) and a description of the Oxford Group not much different from the way modern-day A.A. describes itself.
-
Jeffery Schaler - Addiction is a Choice
not online in full, but a good read nonetheless. Order it here:
http://www.amazon.com/Addiction-Choice- ... 081269404X (http://www.amazon.com/Addiction-Choice-Jeffrey-Schaler/dp/081269404X)
-
Interesting Snip: (http://http://www.morerevealed.com/library/mr/newmr_28.jsp)
The first was an experiment done in San Diego, California. Chronic offenders, averaging twelve prior drunk arrests each, were given a thirty-day suspended sentence and a one-year probation. A requirement of probation was that they remain abstinent for one year.
A court judge randomly assigned 301 people to one of three categories: no treatment, a psychiatrically oriented community alcoholism clinic and Alcoholics Anonymous. Complete data for a minimum of one year was available on 241 cases. In the no-treatment group, 56 percent were rearrested. The AA group fared the worst. In what was almost a tie with the clinic group, 69 percent of the group sent to AA was rearrested. An interesting question, one that was not answered in the research paper, is whether the clinic, as is customary, also sent their clients to AA.
In the first month, all groups did equally as well (or poorly, depending on how one chooses to look at it). After the first month, presumably when AA or clinic attendance should begin showing its effect, is precisely when both groups lost ground against no treatment. Also, while only eleven of the 241 persons credited AA with their longest period of abstinence, nine of these eleven, or a full 80 percent, were rearrested. Those who credited AA the most were rearrested the most.
Another Snip: (http://http://www.morerevealed.com/library/mr/newmr_30.jsp#)
A most revealing study of the over-all success of AA was done by Harvard psychiatrist and prominent authority on the disease of alcoholism, George Vaillant. In one of the longest studies of its size and type, Vaillant followed 100 men for eight years. The men selected were the first 100 consecutive admissions for detoxification at an alcoholism clinic. They were followed up annually. Praised for his candidness, Vaillant wrote of his project in his book, “The Natural History of Alcoholism,”
“It seemed perfectly clear...by turning to recovering alcoholics [AA members] rather than to Ph.D.'s for lessons in breaking self-detrimental and more or less involuntary habits, and by inexorably moving patients...into the treatment system of AA, I was working for the most exciting alcohol program in the world.
But then came the rub. [We] tried to prove our efficacy. ...
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 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.”63
Stanton Peele, an investigator independent of Vaillant's study, after examining some of Vaillant's unpublished data found,
“Of those who quit drinking on their own, none of the twenty-one men followed up since the end of the study were abusing alcohol. ...Relapse was more common for the AA group: 81 percent of those who quit on their own either had abstained for ten or more years or drank infrequently, compared with the 32 percent of those who relied on AA who fall in these categories.”64
Another Snip (http://http://www.morerevealed.com/library/mr/newmr_32.jsp):
One study of many which indicate how AA works in hospitalized patients brings to mind “Oxfordizing” and the five C's. In a Texas hospital69 35 men of various lengths of hospitalization in an AA-based program underwent psychological testing. It was found that the longer a patient was in the program the higher he scored on responses indicating defeat, guilt and fear. Perhaps most important, as the patients became more indoctrinated in AA, their self-concept became progressively more negative than when they first sought help for their drinking problems. As the Oxford Group before them, Alcoholics Anonymous uses guilt to bring about conversion to membership. Alcoholics Anonymous has the added benefit of manipulation through fear. With these tools at its disposal, indoctrinationproceeds. This is all to get a person with a drinking problem to join what has been called, and AA's own statistics70 back up, “a society of slippers.”
The “medical” justification for AA indoctrination used by treatment enterprises and AA itself is the disease theory. Careful examination of disease theory, which many of us have accepted for humanitarian reasons, will show its effects have been far from humanitarian.
-
has it ever been scientifically proved that AA is effective treatment for addiction?
Also, I don't think addiction can be labeled a choice.
-
has it ever been scientifically proved that AA is effective treatment for addiction?
No, but it has been proven ineffective. The only reason it's popular is because those who go believe it works and consider it a tenet of thier beleif (12th step) to "witness" to others and spread their religion. As noted in the first part of the snip above (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=26453&p=322011#p322011), "Those who credited AA the most were rearrested the most."
Another snip:
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.
Outpatient Treatment of Alcoholism, by Jeffrey Brandsma, Maxie Maultsby, and Richard J. Welsh. University Park Press, Baltimore, MD., page 105.
-
Also, I don't think addiction can be labeled a choice.
It's a habit. People quit bad habits. Quitting is a choice.
Here is an interview with Jeffery Schaler, PhD on his book, "Addiction is a Choice". You might change your mind after reading either that article, or the book:
http://archive.salon.com/health/books/2 ... index.html (http://archive.salon.com/health/books/2000/01/10/addiction/index.html)
-
I don't think addiction can be labeled a choice.
Another Snip (http://http://www.morerevealed.com/library/mr/newmr_41.jsp):
loss of control
One of the most carefully researched elements of the disease theory is the concept of loss of control. While it may be a common subjective experience, it is not physically based, as a wealth of research has shown.
The test most often cited due to its methodological soundness, was reported in 1973.84 The experiment involved 32 alcoholics and 32 social drinkers as controls. Both groups were treated identically. The 32 alcoholics were divided into two groups. Under the guise of a taste test, both groups were told they would be rating a new product that had not yet reached the market. One group was told they were taste-testing Brand X vodka; the other, Brand X tonic water. In the group told they were taste-testing alcohol, the drinks were mixed in front of them. The catch, however, was that only half actually received alcohol. The other half were poured drinks from vodka bottles which had been filled with decarbonated tonic water. Half the group that thought they were testing plain tonic water was actually given vodka. For those given vodka in both groups, the concentration was one part vodka to five parts water. It was an amount that would evade detection after use of a mouthwash.
All participants were given two ounces of each of the three different brands as an “introductory sample.” This was the priming dose that, according to the disease theory, would cause loss of control. Twenty minutes later, the actual “taste testing” began. Each participant was given three twenty-four ounce decanters, each decanter labeled for a different brand. They were told to drink as much as they needed to in order to rate it.
No one lost control. No one drank all the liquid. The most important result of the experiment was that the amount drunk was determined, not by whether there was alcohol in the drink, but whether the subjects thought there was alcohol in the drink. The ones who thought they were drinking plain tonic, whether they were really drinking alcohol or not, drank about ten ounces. Those who thought they were drinking alcohol drank more than twice as much, whether or not they were in fact drinking alcohol. It made no difference whether they were really drinking alcohol or not. What made the difference was what they believed and what they expected based on that belief.
The loss of control hypothesis has been tested many times. In another type of experiment, alcoholics who had to have suffered the DT's* in order to participate were allowed to drink all they wanted until a certain cut-off date.85 Before the cut-off date, they tapered off on their own in order to avoid severe withdrawal. They gave them boring and tedious tasks to perform in order to earn “credits” for drinks. Even when the subjects were going through withdrawal from prior earned drinking bouts, drink credits were saved up for later use.
Loss of control has never been proven and, time and again, has been shown to not exist.
...
The belief that alcoholism is progressive and incurable also has a firm hold on our consciousness even though it has been successfully challenged time and again. One of the first studies to report a return to social drinking by alcoholics was published in 1961.87 The researcher used extremely stringent requirements in order to avoid error and criticism. The 93 alcoholics in the study had to meet the World Health Organization's criteria for alcoholism. To qualify as having become a moderate drinker, the subject must have never been drunk in the years after hospital release. The shortest time period allowed was seven years. He found that seven of the 93 who qualified as alcoholics had returned to moderate drinking.
The announcement created a storm. Everyone knew that alcoholics couldn't return to social drinking. There was something wrong with his study. Two of the criticisms were particularly amusing in the light of the careful restriction used in the categories. One was that the test subjects were never really alcoholics, they drank too much, meaning they drank too much to have ever been alcoholics.88 The other was that the moderation in drinking didn't count because it was too moderate."89
Other studies have been done since. The largest was by the prestigious Rand Corporation.90 In a follow-up of 548 alcoholics at eight differnt AA-based treatment centers, they found that 18 percent had moderated their drinking and become non-problem drinkers after treatment. Only 7 percent managed to abstain for the four year period. Those who had some or complete success remaining abstinent, as a group, had twice as many drinking-related problems as those who had moderated their consumption. Overall, they did almost as poorly as those who were still problem drinkers at the four-year point. The Rand Reports also pointed out that those who came to believe the “traditional alcoholism ideology” and had successfully adopted the AA self-mage of “alcoholic” were the ones most likely to continue heavy, problematic drinking.
Also in contradiction to the idea of the inevitable progression and incurability of alcoholism are studies of the drinking habits of young people. A twenty-year follow-up of college students found it rare for a student who drank until blackout to be doing so twenty years later.91 Another study followed high school sophomores for 13 years.92 The data showed that levels of alcohol consumption in the teen years were only mildly predictive of later consumption. Teenage abstinence was also found to be mildly predictive of later heavy drinking. In other words, in this study and others, abstinence has been found to “progress” to alcoholism almost as well as being a teenage drunkard.
The concepts of inevitable progression and incurability have great value, great dollar value to the multi-billion dollar treatment industry and, as Dr. Silkworth taught Bill Wilson, great indoctrination value.
-
Is it accepted in the medical community that AA is ineffective as treatment? Are there conflicting studies, with some showing it helps and some showing it doesn't help? How interesting that AA is ineffective yet so mainstream.
I don't believe addiction is a choice. I am not a PHD, but I am slowly (very) working towards my degree and there have been some pretty seemingly reliable studies done on the brains of addicts and how they differ from non users, or casual drug users, not that I am not so naive as to believe that studies prove anything conclusively, as studies can be manipulated to "prove" things they do not.
I base my belief on my experience with an eating disorder. Even though food lacks the powerful, brain-altering chemical inputs of drugs, i don't feel it was a "choice."
I am against labeling ordinary drug use or abuse as addiction, but I do not feel genuine addiction is a choice in the way deciding to take coke or Pepsi from a vending machine is a choice. People really are overwhelmed, confused, mentally obliterated, and crazed when they get addicted. I am against the over-medicalization of our society, especially as it applies to vulnerable people, but understanding drug addicts as people as, weak willed, lazy, stupid, or slobby, which is the ramification of thinking that addiction is a choice is not something that will be helpful, either
-
Another Snip:
Another characteristic of the disease of alcoholism, one which is increasingly being stressed by the treatment industry in their struggle to fill beds, is the symptom of denial. Obviously, those who engage in self-destructive behavior of any type usually have a strong tendency to discount the damage they inflict upon themselves. Denial as used in the disease of alcoholism, however, has a much broader and sinister meaning.
Refusing to turn oneself over to the treatment authorities is denial. One cannot abstain on one's own, they say, so anyone who believes they can is suffering the symptom of denial. Anyone caught in the webs of the treatment/AA system who believes they can moderate their drinking is guilty of denial. Failure to take the full first step of Alcoholics Anonymous, addmitting that one is “powerless” and can't manage one's own life, is denial. Either you begin accepting their doctrine or you are suffering a symptom of alcoholism. Stopping drinking is insufficient. One still must accept having the disease and submit to the treatment authorities.
Prior to alcoholism as defined by AA, the only other “social ill” for which denial was considered a symptom was in the Middle Ages. In the “diagnosis” of witches, a sure sign of a woman being a witch was that she denied it. It was based on common sense. A real witch would deny it.
It must have been as difficult for someone accused of witchcraft to argue their way out of it as someone today who, once accused, can't help but “prove” their alcoholism by denying it.
It is important to point out that AA members really believe that alcoholism is a disease with the specific characteristics mentioned here. Much of the reason for this is entirely semantic.
By defining alcoholism as a disease and attaching each of the elements of the disease theory to that definition, it proves itself. Just like the basic assumptions about witchcraft proved to almost everyone's satisfaction the existence of witchcraft in the Middle Ages.93
Imagine, for instance, the flu redefined as an always fatal disease. If it isn't fatal, it isn't the flu. Now imagine a doctor with a patient who is running a fever, coughing and headachy. If the patient should die, he can be held up as an example of the inevitable fatality of the flu. But what if the patient lives, as is to be expected? He didn't have the flu. How could he have? The flu, by definition, is always fatal. Using such a definition makes it impossible to prove that the flu isn't always fatal. The presence of the same virus and symptoms in those who live and those who die is irrelevant. If it isn't fatal, it isn't the flu.
-
Is it accepted in the medical community that AA is ineffective as treatment? Are there conflicting studies, with some showing it helps and some showing it doesn't help?
AFAIK, the most positive (for AA) scientific study out there was done by an AA board member at Harvard. It still found a success rate no better than the spontaneous rate of remission (tendency of those without treatment to recover on their own).
I don't believe addiction is a choice. I am not a PHD, but I am slowly (very) working towards my degree and there have been some pretty seemingly reliable studies done on the brains of addicts and how they differ from non users, or casual drug users, not that I am not so naive as to believe that studies prove anything conclusively, as studies can be manipulated to "prove" things they do not.
Stanton Peele, PhD has written on the brain scan studies:
http://www.peele.net/debate/pleasure.html (http://www.peele.net/debate/pleasure.html)
Keep in mind also, that way back in the day it was believed that criminals had different brains than normal people. This led to countless instances of both looking for differences and barbaric experimenting on people's noodles.
I base my belief on my experience with an eating disorder. Even though food lacks the powerful, brain-altering chemical inputs of drugs, i don't feel it was a "choice."
Was it a bad habit? Did you break the bad habit? How did that happen?
I am against labeling ordinary drug use or abuse as addiction, but I do not feel genuine addiction is a choice in the way deciding to take coke or Pepsi from a vending machine is a choice. People really are overwhelmed, confused, mentally obliterated, and crazed when they get addicted.
Aha. You say "overwhelmed". I would say that yes there is pressure, but to the point where a person cannot control himself at all? Neither the facts nor common sense back that up.
Read this snip on that:
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=26453#p322016 (http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=26453#p322016)
-
What is with this website eating my responses?
Well, to repeat myself, I think that study is an example of tendency I was referring when I said that studies are misused as proof for hypotheses that they don't actually verify. I think an alcoholic or an addict can use a drug without automatically falling into a binge. At the same time, I don't think their need and use of drugs is a "choice."
At the very least, the behavior is comparably with the behavior of people dealing with PTSD. Basically, there is something wrong with their brain—that’s not a choice, though perhaps you could say how they react to their brains is, to a certain extent, a “choice,” though I don’t think that’s a fair way to categorize it. Hopefully, though, either way, people will stop being forced to suffer bogus, harmful cures.
-
I think an alcoholic or an addict can use a drug without automatically falling into a binge.
I agree. But that's not what AA teaches. AA teaches that one drink leads to another and so on and so forth, and that there is a "black spot" where an addict/alcoholic cannot control what he/she is doing.
At the same time, I don't think their need and use of drugs is a "choice."
Well, how do alcoholics/addicts manage to quit, then, because it does tend to happen (more likely without AA/NA than with)?
-
I think an alcoholic or an addict can use a drug without automatically falling into a binge.
I agree. But that's not what AA teaches. AA teaches that one drink leads to another and so on and so forth, and that there is a "black spot" where an addict/alcoholic cannot control what he/she is doing.
At the same time, I don't think their need and use of drugs is a "choice."
Well, how do alcoholics/addicts manage to quit, then, because it does tend to happen (more likely without AA/NA than with)?
Well, I think their recovery is comparable to the recovery of someone who has been "brainwashed." I think true alcoholics have an abnormal brain, but through help,(not help in the sense of AA, but help in the sense of people who care about them "being there for them," getting them a reliable place to stay if they homeless, sorting out medical issues that can drive them to self-medicate, etc) fortitude, and luck resist the emotions the abnormal brain produces, navigate it's trance like state like a rider of a dream, and hopefully, by leading a "normal" life eventually end up with a "normal," healed brain that doesn't torment them with emotions, altered states, drives, etc.
-
Well, how do alcoholics/addicts manage to quit, then, because it does tend to happen (more likely without AA/NA than with)?
Well, I think their recovery is comparable to the recovery of someone who has been "brainwashed." I think true alcoholics have an abnormal brain, but through help,(not help in the sense of AA, but help in the sense of people who care about them "being there for them," getting them a reliable place to stay if they homeless, sorting out medical issues that can drive them to self-medicate, etc) fortitude, and luck resist the emotions the abnormal brain produces, navigate it's trance like state like a rider of a dream, and hopefully, by leading a "normal" life eventually end up with a "normal," healed brain that doesn't torment them with emotions, altered states, drives, etc.
I'm not arguing that in some instances there may be genetic predispositions to alcohol abuse, but a predisposition does not mean a person cannot control their actions. That's an excuse, IMO. If that were true, we'd have to aquit people for any actions they commit under the influence since both the decision to drink and their actions under the influence were out of their control (actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea (http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea))... but that's not the way the law works. The very fact that "alcoholics" recover proves that they can control their own behavior and are thus capable of choosing not to drink. You could say "well they weren't alcoholics then", and then we're back to witch dunkings (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=26453#p322018) (read that snip if you haven't already).
The whole "sick brain" "healed brain" thing smacks of pseudoscience, btw. Until I see a solid source on that i'll be very, very skeptical. It seems like something that sounds popular since it lets people have an excuse (it's not my fault, it's just the "disease").
-
I quit drinking twelve years ago with no relapses since I stopped. In the beginning I tried going to AA but the cult vibe and the Judeo-Christian based "spirituality" was off-putting. I didn't like being labelled an alcoholic and told that's what I would be forever. We put too many labels on people already, why be burdened with another. Former smokers aren't called smokers after they quit - I'm only an alcoholic when there is alcohol in my system.
Psy's comments about choice are interesting and how the law views addiction. The courts can force an addict into treatment because they're "sick" while slapping a lengthy jail sentence on them as punishment for being sick? I agree that it is a choice to get help and stop but addiction is stronger than the individual's will power. An addict can rationalize and justify using with a million lies.
-
Some people do get addicted to deadly substances. What do you say to a heroin addict who's only wish in life is to be able to stop using before they die from OD? Sorry buddy, but AA/NA isn't 100% perfect so we're going to have to let you die in the gutter, since that's your choice.
Nobody chooses to be a drug addict, and nobody is immune to it happening to them. Alcohol, heroin, meth, cocaine, oxy, other prescription meds.. these drugs do some serious damage to people who use too much and too often. Those are the people AA/NA is trying to help. The people who have no where else to go. Not everybody has medical insurance that will pay for a 90 day rehab on the beach in Malibu.
I'm not saying AA/NA is the greatest thing in the world. It is kind of cult-like in the rituals and tradition and all that. But they did that for a reason, similar to religion they outlined the general beliefs and traditions so the program can proliferate and expand without a centralized power. It's the people involved in AA/NA that keep it going and donate money, so it must be important to them, or working for them in some way. Otherwise, the program would just fizzle out and disappear.
It's easy for us, people not addicted to deadly substances, to judge them and what they do. But they are adults and are free to make a choice as to what type of setting and social group helps them improve their life.
I know why people on fornits think it's a cult. Many here were submitted and even forced to attend bastardized program versions of AA. That's not AA, that is individual program's forming groups and using lgat confrontation, disguised as a recovery meeting. It's perfectly understandable, that a person subjected to this form of "AA meeting", especially those who didn't have a problem with drugs, would reject anything associated with the group in the future.
AA/NA is a selling point to many parents when searching for a program. It is the accepted method of "recovery" in popular culture, and so programs have adopted some the terminology and tradition to satisfy parents concerned with their kid's (perceived) drug use.
But you can't hold that against AA/NA. It's not a centralized group with a leader. Anyone can start their own meeting, and they are all different. If it didn't do something, if it didn't work, why has it grown to include recovery groups for all the different drugs, and all sorts of addictions. People congregate to form recovery groups on their own, AA just gives them an outline on how to do it.
Addressing the subject of whether addiction is a choice or not. I do not believe it is all about choice. In the beginning it is a choice. Whether to use an addictive drug the first time is a choice. But after that, biology takes over. It doesn't matter if you are happy or sad, rich or poor, smart or dumb... getting high can feel absolutely wonderful, blissful. It's totally natural for people to want to repeat and find that feeling again, and again, and again. There have been studies done with monkeys, when given the choice between cocaine and food, they choose to get high.
The mantra of "everything we do is a choice" comes from life spring. It is a psychologically trick, a cult tool that convinces the followers to feel in control of every aspect of their life, when in fact, much of our lives is out of our control. We don't control everything in our life. This is an uncomfortable reality for some people. So they seek out a group of people who will tell them otherwise. So, in a way, rejecting the idea that addiction can overtake us completely, is also program doctrine. Just a different program.
-
The courts can force an addict into treatment because they're "sick"
Actually, if you have a lawyer who knows what he is doing and knows the relevant court cases, they cannot force you into treatment (or AA treatment at all). Even if you don't have a lawyer with the relevant expertise, Stanton Peele is available to consult with your attorneys.
http://www.peele.net/faq/index12.html (http://www.peele.net/faq/index12.html)
while slapping a lengthy jail sentence on them as punishment for being sick?
See. I don't see it as a disease. If people commit crimes, it shouldn't matter at all what is in their sytem at the time. Throw them in jail.
I agree that it is a choice to get help and stop but addiction is stronger than the individual's will power.
Again, if that were supported by evidence, it would be possible to prove a person innocent based on the legal concept I noted above. But the law wisely recognizes that nothing forces a person to pick up the first drink (or the second, or the third). If it is a choice to stop, it's a choice to continue. Taking a drink is a choice, and whatever follows after that is a person's own responsibility and fault, not some "disease" which has little or no basis in science.
An addict can rationalize and justify using with a million lies.
Says who? That sounds a lot like the denial dogma noted on the previous page (if I say i'm not an addict, it's a denial which is evidence of addiciton... lol). It's witch dunking. Is there any concrete evidence to suggest that users of mind altering substances are more prone to lie than anybody else? If anything, based on my experiences in program, i've seen people confess to far, far, more than they actually did. This coerced confession was perceived as "the truth coming out". It doesn't have to be solid, forceful coercion either. The most powerful social forces are those that are invisible, such as the tendency for a person to want to be accepted and to adapt to the group around him/her.
Case in point, by any reasonable standards, before program I barely drank at all. Yet in program those few past experiences were re-interpreted as grave events, symptoms of a disease. I was told I was sick in the head and learned to doubt myself to the point where I barely knew what had actually happened and what was my "sickness". After all, if I was in program there must be a reason (despite the fact I was sent there for completely unrelated reasons and my parents explicitly stated on the admission form that I did not have a drug/alcohol problem). Eventually I ended up identifying as an "alcoholic". Given the opportunity to drink at that point, I'm sure I would not have controlled myself because I would have been conditioned not to.
The point here is that more often than not, pre-existing biases against users of substances leads others to believe that they are inherently somehow prone to lying about their behavior. This pressure leads people to confess to things they did not do to both relieve the pressure and feel part of the group. Eventually, a person starts to believe these trumped up confessions. Then, and only then, when all self confidence is whittled away and powerless accepted as a good thing, does one truly have a problem.
You want to get people to stop their drinking? Well. Cut out the disease crap, stop giving them bullshit excuses for their behavior, and emphasize that people are responsible for thier own choices and actions. People can quit if they have the desire and willpower. There is no spoon, there is no tooth fairy, there is no Easter bunny higher power. The fact that AA doesn't care which one you pick should be proof enough of that.
-
The mantra of "everything we do is a choice" comes from life spring.
NO. "Everything we do is a choice" is common sense. "Everything that happens to us is our choice" is LifeSpring.
It is a psychologically trick, a cult tool that convinces the followers to feel in control of every aspect of their life, when in fact, much of our lives is out of our control. We don't control everything in our life.
True, and I fully understand the lures of the human potential movement. I'm not saying we control everything in our life. I'm saying we control our actions. That is taking responsibility for ones actions, not taking responsibility for all actions and events in one's life which are out of one's control.
-
Some people do get addicted to deadly substances. What do you say to a heroin addict who's only wish in life is to be able to stop using before they die from OD? Sorry buddy, but AA/NA isn't 100% perfect so we're going to have to let you die in the gutter, since that's your choice.
You make it sound like AA/NA is the only way to recovery. It's not. There are many other programs of recovery, most of them free. While it's my policy not to refer or endorse any treatment at all (not my business), you can find loads of alternatives on google. (just don't pick Narcanon, a Scientology front)
Nobody chooses to be a drug addict, and nobody is immune to it happening to them.
People do choose to take drugs which they know can cause physical dependency.
Alcohol, heroin, meth, cocaine, oxy, other prescription meds.. these drugs do some serious damage to people who use too much and too often. Those are the people AA/NA is trying to help. The people who have no where else to go. Not everybody has medical insurance that will pay for a 90 day rehab on the beach in Malibu.
..Where, chances are, they will get AA meetings. In Europe, however, AA is largely recognized as bunk, as is the disease model of addiciton. Addiction is a habit. Bad habits can be broken with determination and by recognizing patterns in behavior. A change in envirnment, for example has been shown to help vietnam vets to quit.(yeah, a geographical cure). Also, addiction is not a "progressive disease". Even with heroin. In countries with medical heroin (such as Switzerland), 50% of heroin "addicts" quit after 3 years either on their own or with therapy (not with AA which is abstinence only). Article on that here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/2 ... 47023.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/28/switzerland-likely-to-app_n_147023.html)
I'm not saying AA/NA is the greatest thing in the world. It is kind of cult-like in the rituals and tradition and all that. But they did that for a reason, similar to religion they outlined the general beliefs and traditions so the program can proliferate and expand without a centralized power.
Yes, I realize it spreads like a cancer. I realize this very well. When a cult leader dies (such as bill Wilson) and the followers don't realize it's a con, it's what you get. It would all be well and good if it actually worked and didn't do more harm than good. Yet, addicts/alcoholics are stastically more likely to quit if they choose no treatment over AA/NA.
It's the people involved in AA/NA that keep it going and donate money, so it must be important to them, or working for them in some way. Otherwise, the program would just fizzle out and disappear.
Unless it doesn't work, yet the followers are convinced it does, which is the case with AA, as is with most cults and cult-like groups. As is noted in the study in this snippet (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=26453#p322011): "Those who credited AA the most were rearrested the most." In other words, the more of a disaster these people are, the more they credit AA for saving their lives (when statistically, it's actually doing the opposite).
It's easy for us, people not addicted to deadly substances, to judge them and what they do. But they are adults and are free to make a choice as to what type of setting and social group helps them improve their life.
Oh. By no means am I arguing that AA/NA shouldn't be free to exist and that people shouldn't be able to choose to go. What I am doing, however, is exercising my right to educate people about the dangers (yes, dangers) of AA 12 step treatment in general.
I know why people on fornits think it's a cult. Many here were submitted and even forced to attend bastardized program versions of AA. That's not AA, that is individual program's forming groups and using lgat confrontation, disguised as a recovery meeting. It's perfectly understandable, that a person subjected to this form of "AA meeting", especially those who didn't have a problem with drugs, would reject anything associated with the group in the future.
While you're right that many on fornits might have that knee-jerk reaction, it wouldn't be accurate to say that I have come to my conclusions for those reasons. I consider treatment (institutional) AA a front group of sorts for AA as a whole... forced conversions institutions for the main religion. Think of it this way: If parents are christians and their kids are gay, they can send the kids to a place like "love in action" to de-gay them and convert them to christianity. If parents are steppers and their kids are experimenting with alcohol, they can send their kids to a 12 step program to convert them to the 12 step religion (and courts have deemed AA a religion). What i'm saying is that while AA itself is not a cult (it may be cult like) the institutional variants of AA fulfill the missing pieces of the cult pie. When seen together as a whole, AA is a religion that has managed to lobby the state to get forced conversions. That is not something a religion does.
AA/NA is a selling point to many parents when searching for a program. It is the accepted method of "recovery" in popular culture, and so programs have adopted some the terminology and tradition to satisfy parents concerned with their kid's (perceived) drug use.
I could not agree more, but they also do use AA techinques. Maybe a little more extreme, a fundamentalist variant of AA, if you will, but it's AA nonetheless.
But you can't hold that against AA/NA. It's not a centralized group with a leader.
Only because the original charismatic leader is dead and the asshole in his infinite narcisissm saw fit to write in systemic redundancy so as to spawn a religion and make himself a messiah, even in death. The leader is the one thing AA misses currently, but how many other pieces of cult criteria does it fit? Just because a cult leader writes in redundancy to keep the system going after he's gone doesn't mean that an organization can't be a cult (or function as one for all intents and purposes). There is an exception to every rule.
Anyone can start their own meeting, and they are all different. If it didn't do something, if it didn't work, why has it grown to include recovery groups for all the different drugs, and all sorts of addictions.
Something doesn't have to work well to spread. Just ask Scientology. People believing they are being cured combined with a built in system of witnessing (12th step) is enough.
People congregate to form recovery groups on their own, AA just gives them an outline on how to do it.
Addressing the subject of whether addiction is a choice or not. I do not believe it is all about choice. In the beginning it is a choice. Whether to use an addictive drug the first time is a choice. But after that, biology takes over. It doesn't matter if you are happy or sad, rich or poor, smart or dumb... getting high can feel absolutely wonderful, blissful. It's totally natural for people to want to repeat and find that feeling again, and again, and again. There have been studies done with monkeys, when given the choice between cocaine and food, they choose to get high.
And there have been studies done on humans (some of which are outlined on the previous page) to show that even serious "addicts" can control themselves and quit.
-
The courts can force an addict into treatment because they're "sick"
Actually, if you have a lawyer who knows what he is doing and knows the relevant court cases, they cannot force you into treatment (or AA treatment at all). Even if you don't have a lawyer with the relevant expertise, Stanton Peele is available to consult with your attorneys.
http://www.peele.net/faq/index12.html (http://www.peele.net/faq/index12.html)
while slapping a lengthy jail sentence on them as punishment for being sick?
See. I don't see it as a disease. If people commit crimes, it shouldn't matter at all what is in their sytem at the time. Throw them in jail.
I agree that it is a choice to get help and stop but addiction is stronger than the individual's will power.
Again, if that were supported by evidence, it would be possible to prove a person innocent based on the legal concept I noted above. But the law wisely recognizes that nothing forces a person to pick up the first drink (or the second, or the third). If it is a choice to stop, it's a choice to continue. Taking a drink is a choice, and whatever follows after that is a person's own responsibility and fault, not some "disease" which has little or no basis in science.
An addict can rationalize and justify using with a million lies.
Says who? That sounds a lot like the denial dogma noted on the previous page (if I say i'm not an addict, it's a denial which is evidence of addiciton... lol). It's witch dunking. Is there any concrete evidence to suggest that users of mind altering substances are more prone to lie than anybody else? If anything, based on my experiences in program, i've seen people confess to far, far, more than they actually did. This coerced confession was perceived as "the truth coming out". It doesn't have to be solid, forceful coercion either. The most powerful social forces are those that are invisible, such as the tendency for a person to want to be accepted and to adapt to the group around him/her.
Case in point, by any reasonable standards, before program I barely drank at all. Yet in program those few past experiences were re-interpreted as grave events, symptoms of a disease. I was told I was sick in the head and learned to doubt myself to the point where I barely knew what had actually happened and what was my "sickness". After all, if I was in program there must be a reason (despite the fact I was sent there for completely unrelated reasons and my parents explicitly stated on the admission form that I did not have a drug/alcohol problem). Eventually I ended up identifying as an "alcoholic". Given the opportunity to drink at that point, I'm sure I would not have controlled myself because I would have been conditioned not to.
The point here is that more often than not, pre-existing biases against users of substances leads others to believe that they are inherently somehow prone to lying about their behavior. This pressure leads people to confess to things they did not do to both relieve the pressure and feel part of the group. Eventually, a person starts to believe these trumped up confessions. Then, and only then, when all self confidence is whittled away and powerless accepted as a good thing, does one truly have a problem.
You want to get people to stop their drinking? Well. Cut out the disease crap, stop giving them bullshit excuses for their behavior, and emphasize that people are responsible for thier own choices and actions. People can quit if they have the desire and willpower. There is no spoon, there is no tooth fairy, there is no Easter bunny higher power. The fact that AA doesn't care which one you pick should be proof enough of that.
Every addict is different, I was describing my own experience and what I learned from others who didn't agree with AA's organized religion/treatment. I thought it was a given when I said addiction is powerful enough to override logic and cause the addict to rationalize his/her problem.
Again, my own experience: I drank from the age of 14 on. It helped prop up my self confidence. Quitting was always an option, but all I knew was a drinker's lifestyle and every aspect of social life revolved around it. I agree with you a 100% that the disease crap needs to stop, although I think addiction is genetic. Desire and willpower aren't enough to get an addict clean if the addiction is rooted in his/her genetic code. Calling addiction a choice may be over simplifying the problem. Some call homosexuality an immoral lifestyle choice and believe they can make a gay person "normal". I don't believe sexual orientation is a conscious choice that could or should be changed, it's who the person is. The addict does need to change but it requires giving up the only identity they know. Scary shit.
-
Some people do get addicted to deadly substances. What do you say to a heroin addict who's only wish in life is to be able to stop using before they die from OD? Sorry buddy, but AA/NA isn't 100% perfect so we're going to have to let you die in the gutter, since that's your choice.
You make it sound like AA/NA is the only way to recovery. It's not. There are many other programs of recovery, most of them free. While it's my policy not to refer or endorse any treatment at all (not my business), you can find loads of alternatives on google. (just don't pick Narcanon, a Scientology front)
Nobody chooses to be a drug addict, and nobody is immune to it happening to them.
People do choose to take drugs which they know can cause physical dependency.
Alcohol, heroin, meth, cocaine, oxy, other prescription meds.. these drugs do some serious damage to people who use too much and too often. Those are the people AA/NA is trying to help. The people who have no where else to go. Not everybody has medical insurance that will pay for a 90 day rehab on the beach in Malibu.
..Where, chances are, they will get AA meetings. In Europe, however, AA is largely recognized as bunk, as is the disease model of addiciton. Addiction is a habit. Bad habits can be broken with determination and by recognizing patterns in behavior. A change in envirnment, for example has been shown to help vietnam vets to quit.(yeah, a geographical cure). Also, addiction is not a "progressive disease". Even with heroin. In countries with medical heroin (such as Switzerland), 50% of heroin "addicts" quit after 3 years either on their own or with therapy (not with AA which is abstinence only). Article on that here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/2 ... 47023.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/28/switzerland-likely-to-app_n_147023.html)
I'm not saying AA/NA is the greatest thing in the world. It is kind of cult-like in the rituals and tradition and all that. But they did that for a reason, similar to religion they outlined the general beliefs and traditions so the program can proliferate and expand without a centralized power.
Yes, I realize it spreads like a cancer. I realize this very well. When a cult leader dies (such as bill Wilson) and the followers don't realize it's a con, it's what you get. It would all be well and good if it actually worked and didn't do more harm than good. Yet, addicts/alcoholics are stastically more likely to quit if they choose no treatment over AA/NA.
It's the people involved in AA/NA that keep it going and donate money, so it must be important to them, or working for them in some way. Otherwise, the program would just fizzle out and disappear.
Unless it doesn't work, yet the followers are convinced it does, which is the case with AA, as is with most cults and cult-like groups. As is noted in the study in this snippet (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=26453#p322011): "Those who credited AA the most were rearrested the most." In other words, the more of a disaster these people are, the more they credit AA for saving their lives (when statistically, it's actually doing the opposite).
It's easy for us, people not addicted to deadly substances, to judge them and what they do. But they are adults and are free to make a choice as to what type of setting and social group helps them improve their life.
Oh. By no means am I arguing that AA/NA shouldn't be free to exist and that people shouldn't be able to choose to go. What I am doing, however, is exercising my right to educate people about the dangers (yes, dangers) of AA 12 step treatment in general.
I know why people on fornits think it's a cult. Many here were submitted and even forced to attend bastardized program versions of AA. That's not AA, that is individual program's forming groups and using lgat confrontation, disguised as a recovery meeting. It's perfectly understandable, that a person subjected to this form of "AA meeting", especially those who didn't have a problem with drugs, would reject anything associated with the group in the future.
While you're right that many on fornits might have that knee-jerk reaction, it wouldn't be accurate to say that I have come to my conclusions for those reasons. I consider treatment (institutional) AA a front group of sorts for AA as a whole... forced conversions institutions for the main religion. Think of it this way: If parents are christians and their kids are gay, they can send the kids to a place like "love in action" to de-gay them and convert them to christianity. If parents are steppers and their kids are experimenting with alcohol, they can send their kids to a 12 step program to convert them to the 12 step religion (and courts have deemed AA a religion). What i'm saying is that while AA itself is not a cult (it may be cult like) the institutional variants of AA fulfill the missing pieces of the cult pie. When seen together as a whole, AA is a religion that has managed to lobby the state to get forced conversions. That is not something a religion does.
AA/NA is a selling point to many parents when searching for a program. It is the accepted method of "recovery" in popular culture, and so programs have adopted some the terminology and tradition to satisfy parents concerned with their kid's (perceived) drug use.
I could not agree more, but they also do use AA techinques. Maybe a little more extreme, a fundamentalist variant of AA, if you will, but it's AA nonetheless.
But you can't hold that against AA/NA. It's not a centralized group with a leader.
Only because the original charismatic leader is dead and the asshole in his infinite narcisissm saw fit to write in systemic redundancy so as to spawn a religion and make himself a messiah, even in death. The leader is the one thing AA misses currently, but how many other pieces of cult criteria does it fit? Just because a cult leader writes in redundancy to keep the system going after he's gone doesn't mean that an organization can't be a cult (or function as one for all intents and purposes). There is an exception to every rule.
Anyone can start their own meeting, and they are all different. If it didn't do something, if it didn't work, why has it grown to include recovery groups for all the different drugs, and all sorts of addictions.
Something doesn't have to work well to spread. Just ask Scientology. People believing they are being cured combined with a built in system of witnessing (12th step) is enough.
People congregate to form recovery groups on their own, AA just gives them an outline on how to do it.
Addressing the subject of whether addiction is a choice or not. I do not believe it is all about choice. In the beginning it is a choice. Whether to use an addictive drug the first time is a choice. But after that, biology takes over. It doesn't matter if you are happy or sad, rich or poor, smart or dumb... getting high can feel absolutely wonderful, blissful. It's totally natural for people to want to repeat and find that feeling again, and again, and again. There have been studies done with monkeys, when given the choice between cocaine and food, they choose to get high.
And there have been studies done on humans (some of which are outlined on the previous page) to show that even serious "addicts" can control themselves and quit.
Is being brainwashed a choice? Can you chose not to have depression or be brainwashed? Why does recovery from an addiction "prove" there is no such thing as addiction, anymore than the recovery from depression "prove" there is no such thing as depression? Does recovery from being brainwashed "prove" there is no such thing as being brainwashed as well? Do you agree we should tell kids in program to stop the bullshit, take responsibility for themselves, and not be brainwashed? Tell survivors to not have PTSD!?!
I find it funny that you believe in brainwashing, which science is much less accepting of as authentic, but not in addiction. Whether or not addiction is a reality, cultic psychological torture is not acceptable ethically, or as a treatment modality. I think denying the existence of mental illness or addiction as a way to negate the necessity of any program is not the way to go. Mental illness and addiction can exist, and abduction, forced imprisonment still be evil, harmful, and unjustified.
-
My opinion on "addiction" is that there are two kinds of addicts. Those who are self medicating and their initial mental weaknesses are driving their apparent need to use drugs, and those who started for fun, became comfortable with the lifestyle and formed a habit. One of which is addicted BECAUSE of a pre-existing condition and the other is simply making a series of bad choices. Although they are both considered "addicts" I believe the treatment for their reasons to use drugs should be treated, not just assuming you can guilt an addict into not using.
AA/NA might be the system that some ex addicts hold onto in order to keep themselves sober but AA/NA is NOT treatment. AA/NA is very similar to a cult, in the way they operate and their belief system. I'm honestly surprised that a system like this would be so main stream, to the point that people are actually being court ordered to attend meetings. The whole thing just creeps me out and reminds me of the program. The fact that you would HAVE to admit (believe) that there is a god and you must submit yourself to his will just makes me laugh! So atheists aren't allowed in AA/NA? So you must first convert to a religion before you can get sober?
Just STOP drinking, snorting coke, smoking meth and your cured! How hard is that? AA/NA making all these excuses that your powerless and addiction is a disease only sets drug users up for failure. They brainwash vunerable "addicts" to NEED AA/NA by playing on their addictive tendencies to swap one "temporary void filler" for another. So if they stop going to meetings they are programed to fail, thus proving the supposed dependency on AA/NA. However if the source of their addiction to drugs was properly treated they would be able to abstain from using drugs without any 3rd party system as a crutch and would find much more success in their sobriety.
I understand that some people are just prone to abusing drugs, and never seem to grasp the concept of moderation. But why is that?... are people really genetically predisposed or is it some kind of chemical imbalance that drives them to over-indulge despite there being many logical reasons not to?
I have the same question about women who stay with men who are abusive, why is it so hard to just walk away from the poison that is destroying their lives?
-
My opinion on "addiction" is that there are two kinds of addicts. Those who are self medicating and their initial mental weaknesses are driving their apparent need to use drugs, and those who started for fun, became comfortable with the lifestyle and formed a habit. One of which is addicted BECAUSE of a pre-existing condition and the other is simply making a series of bad choices. Although they are both considered "addicts" I believe the treatment for their reasons to use drugs should be treated, not just assuming you can guilt an addict into not using.
AA/NA might be the system that some ex addicts hold onto in order to keep themselves sober but AA/NA is NOT treatment. AA/NA is very similar to a cult, in the way they operate and their belief system. I'm honestly surprised that a system like this would be so main stream, to the point that people are actually being court ordered to attend meetings. The whole thing just creeps me out and reminds me of the program. The fact that you would HAVE to admit (believe) that there is a god and you must submit yourself to his will just makes me laugh! So atheists aren't allowed in AA/NA? So you must first convert to a religion before you can get sober?
Just STOP drinking, snorting coke, smoking meth and your cured! How hard is that? AA/NA making all these excuses that your powerless and addiction is a disease only sets drug users up for failure. They brainwash vunerable "addicts" to NEED AA/NA by playing on their addictive tendencies to swap one "temporary void filler" for another. So if they stop going to meetings they are programed to fail, thus proving the supposed dependency on AA/NA. However if the source of their addiction to drugs was properly treated they would be able to abstain from using drugs without any 3rd party system as a crutch and would find much more success in their sobriety.
I understand that some people are just prone to abusing drugs, and never seem to grasp the concept of moderation. But why is that?... are people really genetically predisposed or is it some kind of chemical imbalance that drives them to over-indulge despite there being many logical reasons not to?
I have the same question about women who stay with men who are abusive, why is it so hard to just walk away from the poison that is destroying their lives?
I don't know about people being genetically predisoposed or not, but i think once a person is chemically addicted, as in, if they do not meet their bodies need for the drugs they will go into withdrawal, they have an addiction. I think it's a psychological issue and physical issue.
-
Every addict is different, I was describing my own experience and what I learned from others who didn't agree with AA's organized religion/treatment. I thought it was a given when I said addiction is powerful enough to override logic and cause the addict to rationalize his/her problem.
Well. My advice on this and just about everything is to accept nothing as a given. Sometimes things aren't as simple as they seem on the surface.
Again, my own experience: I drank from the age of 14 on. It helped prop up my self confidence. Quitting was always an option, but all I knew was a drinker's lifestyle and every aspect of social life revolved around it. I agree with you a 100% that the disease crap needs to stop, although I think addiction is genetic.
I'd say that alcoholism can be genetic. or that people can have a genetic propensity towards physical alcohol dependence. As for whether or not there is some inherited personality defect, I would dispute that. I'm more inclined to believe a "problem drinker" learns from his/her environment and how he/she has seen other people drink. Either a person grows up with prohibitionists, eventually tasting the "forbidden fruit" and overindulging on a regular basis to the point where it forms both a physical dependency and a habit or they grow up around other "problem drinkers", learning that alcohol is addictive, learning how not to drink, and most likely getting an unhealthy dose of AA dogma along the way (teaching him/her that a person is powerless over alcohol).
Desire and willpower aren't enough to get an addict clean if the addiction is rooted in his/her genetic code. Calling addiction a choice may be over simplifying the problem. Some call homosexuality an immoral lifestyle choice and believe they can make a gay person "normal". I don't believe sexual orientation is a conscious choice that could or should be changed, it's who the person is. The addict does need to change but it requires giving up the only identity they know. Scary shit.
Well. Homosexuality is a slightly different issue, but personally I subcribe to the Kinsey scale, where all people fall somewhere between one to six on the gay-straight scale. Let's accept for the sake of argument that both homosexuality and alcoholism is genetic. In either case a person can choose not to fulfill that genetic disposition. A gay person can lead a straight life (although most would argue this is both unhealthy and pointless), and a person with a propensity to alcohol dependence can choose not to drink (this would probably be healthier, unless you live in Ireland where most of the country would be considered problem drinkers by American standards)
The point is that a genetic code does not make decisions. It can influence, yes, but people always have choices. Even if there is a genetic predisposition, I do not accept that people with such problems cannot quit on their own. Why? As i've said, because statistically, if they do not go to AA people are statistically better off, more likely to quit, and less likely to binge if they continue to drink.
-
Is being brainwashed a choice? Can you chose not to have depression or be brainwashed? Why does recovery from an addiction "prove" there is no such thing as addiction, anymore than the recovery from depression "prove" there is no such thing as depression?
It depends on what what you mean by the term "addiction". Even if there is a genetic predisposition towards a behavior, it's still a behavior and this does not make it a disease (just like homosexuality). Propensity does not mean destiny. That being said, I believe people have the right to drink or put whatever they want in their bodies. At the same time they shouldn't be trying to blame their actions under the influence on some uncontrollable urge (which research shows is more or less an excuse, as even "dire" cases can control themselves as circumstances change around them... see some of the studies on the previous page).
If being under the influence automatically absolved me of my actions, I would probably down a bottle of vodka, run down a whole slew of program directors with my car, and blame it on a disease I don't have and likely does not exist (even if a propensity that behavior does). LOL.
Does recovery from being brainwashed "prove" there is no such thing as being brainwashed as well? Do you agree we should tell kids in program to stop the bullshit, take responsibility for themselves, and not be brainwashed? Tell survivors to not have PTSD!?!
I find it funny that you believe in brainwashing, which science is much less accepting of as authentic, but not in addiction.
Here is the difference: Brainwashing is something a person does to another person or group of people. For this reason, it is largely out of a person's control. Drinking is a choice, on the other hand, and becoming physically dependent on alcohol or developing a habit can happen as a result of that choice. People know that. Those who consume alcohol fully consent to drinking. Nobody consents to Brainwashing (it requires that people are unaware that it's going on).
Yet people do quit cults, and brainwashing is not seen as a disease either. It can cause problems and even psychological disorders such as PTSD, but such conditions are ultimately and for the large part treatable. It's not a lifelong condition that one has to accept powerlessness over, unlike the popular perception of alcoholism. Unlike alcoholism also, people who have been brainwashed and have educated themselves or been educated about how it works are less likely to be conned in the future.
Whether or not addiction is a reality, cultic psychological torture is not acceptable ethically, or as a treatment modality. I think denying the existence of mental illness or addiction as a way to negate the necessity of any program is not the way to go. Mental illness and addiction can exist, and abduction, forced imprisonment still be evil, harmful, and unjustified.
Well. We agree 100% there, but that's besides the point.
-
I don't know about people being genetically predisoposed or not, but i think once a person is chemically addicted, as in, if they do not meet their bodies need for the drugs they will go into withdrawal, they have an addiction.
Sure. They have a physical dependency. But once the substance is out of their system there is nothing influencing them and all they have is a habit. Habits are not diseases. They are patterns of behavior that are broken. I used to bite my nails. I barely even noticed I was doing it. I didn't call it a disease and give up, however. I tried a few times and on one attempt I successfully broke the habit.
-
There have been studies done with monkeys, when given the choice between cocaine and food, they choose to get high.
There is a snip in at least one of the books about that (http://http://www.morerevealed.com/library/mr/newmr_52.jsp).
In one of the cruelest experiments, a monkey is ”wired up“ so that it can press a lever and inject itself with a drug. The monkey, isolated from others of its kind and restricted from normal monkey behavior, sometimes even strapped to the wall of a cage, will inject itself until death. These studies have been used to demonstrate the addictive nature of the drug itself.
Now think about it. If you were strapped to a wall indefinately and given the choice of living miserably or dying comfortably (not that the monkeys know that they can die, unlike humans), what would you pick? But while you think about that, consider this:
A more sophisticated method of getting animals to drink or drug themselves heavily is called intermittent reinforcement.101 In this method, a rat is fed just enough to keep it always hungry. The hungry rat is placed in a cage where it can get only a tiny pellet of food about every minute. Under these conditions, if alcohol is available, the rat will quickly begin to “drink alcoholicly.” If an opiate solution should be available instead, it will become a “drug addict.” In either case the rat is subject to be aggressive and to behave bizarrely in other ways, such as eating its litter.*
This appears to be an excellent demonstration of the power of the drugs. Any substance considered addictive can be used and the results will be similar. The only weakness in this model of addiction (which is also its strength) is that the conditions create excessive behavior. The behavior isn't caused by the particular chemical available.
Water can be substituted for the alcohol or drug. Rats will consume as much as one half of their body weight in water in just three hours. They will become aggressive and behave bizarrely. They become just as “addicted to water” as they do to alcohol and opiates. Of course, the roots of the excessive behavior in rats is not in the alcohol, the opiate or in the water. It is in the environment and in the rats.
Rats aren't the only animals that respond this way under intermittent reinforcement. Excessive behavior has been brought about in a long list of animals including squirrels, pigeons, monkeys and even humans. Nor is food the only item which can be manipulated to bring on excessive behavior. Anything needed by any mammal, including humans, can be used. Water, sex, space or status all can be used to bring about the same effect.
Very little is needed to bring about the excessive behavior characteristic of addiction. All that is needed is for the animal or person to be in a frustrated state. Something must be needed which is not available in sufficient quantity but available enough so continued effort will partly fill the need. Giving up must appear to be the worst option. For instance, if rats are given the same amount of food at once instead of a little at a time, they will eat it and give up on finding more. Their behavior doesn't become excessive. It is only in the frustrating gap between enough reward to keep trying and not enough to fill the need that excessive behavior occurs. It can be stated that chronic frustration causes excessive behavior. While over simplifying things, it can be stated that chronic frustration causes addiction.
There is also a snip on the VIetnam vets I mentioned (http://http://www.morerevealed.com/library/mr/newmr_50.jsp):
During the Vietnam War, many U.S. soldiers became addicted to heroin. The problem was so widespread many government officials feared what would happen when the troops returned home. There were visions of drug addicts running wild in the streets committing crimes to feed their habits. That didn't happen. After returning home, only about 10 percent had further experience with opiates. After returning home, only about one-eigth became readdicted.96 It was also found that, of those who didn't quit upon return, 63 percent had already been using narcotics before going to Vietnam.
Rather than looking at heroin addiction as merely a pharmacological effect of using heroin, it is more productive to look at the many other factors that come into play. For instance, what is the effect of the environment?
By comparing the Vietnam Vets with troops stationed in other areas, it becomes clear that being in the war zone, and presumably the associated stress, had a lot to do with whether or not a soldier would become addicted. Soldiers stationed in other areas, like Thailand and Korea, where heroin was available but away from the war zone, had a much lower rate of addiction. It is also noteworthy that even after addiction, a change of environment, specifically going home, usually ”cured“ the soldiers stationed in Vietnam.
And AA says Geographic cures don't work! HAH! AA is the modern equivalent of bloodletting. Harmless at best (certainly doesn't help), and could very well kill you if you put too much faith in it.