HR 1258 TREAT America Act of 2005

[Anne Bonney]

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.

[ZenAgent]

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.

[Anne Bonney]

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.)

[Anne Bonney]

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.

[Anne Bonney]

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.

[Anonymous]

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?

[Anne Bonney]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anne Bonney]

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


 

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.

[ZenAgent]

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.

[Anne Bonney]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anne Bonney]

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

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.

[Anonymous]

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

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.

[Deborah]

***"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.