HR 1258 TREAT America Act of 2005

[Anne Bonney]

"Pressure" is still a form of coercion. I personally believe every addict must own his or her own recovery. "Die if they don't work the program?" The phrase I'm most familiar with is that the path of addiction leads to either prison, insanity or death. I believe that. It's ok with me if you don't believe it. I also believe the 12 steps are not for everyone, and that programs like SMART may be a better choice for some people. Unfortunately, not everyone has lots of choices, depending on where they live. For better or worse, the 12 steps are everywhere, so if someone is truly an addict and can find an interpretation of the 12 steps that works for him, I think he's better off than going it alone.

How can you say that when AA's own study says that it was not helpful and in fact was harmful?

It depends on the new person and the sponsor. If the new person is someone who has lost his job, his driver's license and his marriage, and his substance abuse played a big role in all of that but the new person just doesn't see it, he will probably be told he's in denial. And he probably is. If the new person isn't really an addict, or believes he can moderate his use, he might be in the wrong place at the wrong time. A good sponsor should tell him to go back out there and see how it works out for him. And then tell him we're always here if you want to come back.

But that's not what happens and you know it.  It's also not what the Big Book or any of the other AA literature says.  And who is an AA sponsor to decide whether or not someone is in denail or is an actual addict or alcoholic?

I guess there are as many different interpretations and as many different types of meetings as there addicts. The stuff on that web page you mentioned is very foreign to my experience. Nobody ever pretended AA was about "medical treatment" and I have not experienced religious zealotry. Hell, most people I know in recovery aren't terribly religious and claim the group itself as their "higher power." Of course, if you go to a Christian-oriented meeting, everyone will be claiming God or Jesus as their higher power. If that's not what you want to believe, then you're in the wrong meeting.

Now I'm suggesting you're the one who's in denial.

On the contrary, I see a lot of harm in that. You said your daughter was forced to go by her father. Strike one. She was told she was an addict and would die if she left, and apparently you and she felt otherwise. Strike two. She was told that AA is the only way. Strike three. I find it disheartening to hear about experiences like that. I have no way of knowing how common or uncommon that is, but it has not been my experience.

But it's all too common and if you don't see it, you're not paying attention.  All the AA literature and dogma deals with everyone that way.

The whole premise of the fellowship is addicts helping other addicts. That should include really listening to another person and having the guts to say "It doesn't seem like you're getting much value from this, have you looked at other options?" Some members may think AA is the only way for them, but are wise enough to recognize that it's not for everyone. I don't see any real motivation to indoctrinate newcomers. I'm going to come to this meeting, sometimes I'll talk, sometimes I'll just listen. You can come too if you want to, or not if you don't. I have nothing to gain or lose either way by your actions.

That's fine.  You enjoy the social aspect of it.  That doesn't mean it 'works'.  That doesn't mean that what's written in those pages and practiced in those rooms is good or helpful.

I think it would actually be quite difficult to make it a scientifically valid study. I also don't think the results would be very encouraging to people who are seeking a "cure," because I truly belileve there is no cure, just remission. And how would you score the results? Sobriety is not the same thing as avoiding substance abuse, but I'd be willing to bet that any study would focus exclusively on using behavior.

No, it really wouldn't.  And you're right, there is no 'cure' because there is no 'disease'.

[Anonymous]

And you're right, there is no 'cure' because there is no 'disease'.

Call it what you want and we'll just have to agree to disagree. I don't think of it as a disease, I think of it more like an allergy. Some people can use various substances for their whole lives and never have a problem. Others can't and they know it so they don't. With or without AA/NA or anything else, they just don't because they've tried moderation before and it just didn't work for them the way they hoped.

Opposing a House bill is one thing, but if you're trying to abolish AA/NA or any other self-help support group, it'll never happen. All it takes is two people who decide "I don't want to live like this anymore, let's help each other," and thus a meeting is born. Addicts helping each other is powerful. The dogma and the slogans and all that other stuff is really just window dressing to that basic premise.

[Anne Bonney]

Call it what you want and we'll just have to agree to disagree. I don't think of it as a disease, I think of it more like an allergy. Some people can use various substances for their whole lives and never have a problem. Others can't and they know it so they don't. With or without AA/NA or anything else, they just don't because they've tried moderation before and it just didn't work for them the way they hoped.

I don't have a problem with that analogy at all.  A good friend of mine is allergic to shellfish.  She adores shrimp but will not eat it.  Ever.  She understands the consequence of her actions.

Did you read this?  

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

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

Opposing a House bill is one thing, but if you're trying to abolish AA/NA or any other self-help support group, it'll never happen.

I don't hold any illusions about that.  This is just how I feel and what I've been thinking when trying to figure out how we got here.

 

All it takes is two people who decide "I don't want to live like this anymore, let's help each other," and thus a meeting is born. Addicts helping each other is powerful. The dogma and the slogans and all that other stuff is really just window dressing to that basic premise.

I have no problem at all with a social group of like minded people supporting each other, it's the cult dogma that I cant' stomach.  And it's not window dressing.  It's the very foundation of it.

[tommyfromhyde1]

I got involved in both AA and NA in the early '90s after a 28 day "rehab" stint. Yes I was pressured into it. One thing that I noticed when I attended an NA  "group concience" (boring business meeting where the real decisions get made) was that everyone who showed up (except me) was either a treatment center employee or a state corrections department employee.

[Anne Bonney]

I got involved in both AA and NA in the early '90s after a 28 day "rehab" stint. Yes I was pressured into it. One thing that I noticed when I attended an NA  "group concience" (boring business meeting where the real decisions get made) was that everyone who showed up (except me) was either a treatment center employee or a state corrections department employee.

And that's exactly why I think this is so worth talking about.

 :tup:  :tup:

[Anonymous]

Maybe some AA/NA and related meetings have been corrupted and/or co-opted by state or private treatment programs, which is a damn shame and is really contrary to AA's traditions.

Seems to be a symptom of this industry -- to swallow and corrupt anything it can use in the pursuit of the almighty dollar and the farce of "treatment."

[Anne Bonney]

Maybe some AA/NA and related meetings have been corrupted and/or co-opted by state or private treatment programs, which is a damn shame and is really contrary to AA's traditions.

Seems to be a symptom of this industry -- to swallow and corrupt anything it can use in the pursuit of the almighty dollar and the farce of "treatment."

AA's traditions are corrupt.  It's not just the people, it's the basics and teachings of the program itself that suck.  And this 'industry' was virtually created by the teachings and followers of AA.

[Anonymous]

I can't find anything in the AA literature that talks about behavior mod, escorts and holding people against their will in the name of rehab or treatment. THAT's the industry I'm talking about -- not the 'industry' of self-help or community-based support groups.

[Oz girl]

I have a question for anne. if adults go to AA voluntarily and it does help a percentage of them even if it turns out it is a small percent. What is the harm. Why not help fund it? i am not talking about forcing anyone to go. i am certainly not advocating it for kids and I hate tyhe whole tradition that straight seems to have set up. i dont get why people do this to their kids and the reason why i look at these boards and participate in the discussion is because i ma trying to figure it out.
But if some adults who have struggled with an addiction take it upon themselves to go and they feel that it is the only way to get things on an even keel and keep them there, where is the harm?

[Deborah]

The point- AA started as a voluntary support group. It needs to stay that way.
There's not a thing wrong with people doing what they want, persuing whatever works for them.
Tax payers should not be asked to fund support groups, particularly when the support group is being forced on people as some kind of 'therapy' and there's no evidence of efficacy.
No funding for support groups that were intended from the beginning to be free to the public, who were supposed to be willing participants.

[Anne Bonney]

The point- AA started as a voluntary support group. It needs to stay that way.
There's not a thing wrong with people doing what they want, persuing whatever works for them.
Tax payers should not be asked to fund support groups, particularly when the support group is being forced on people as some kind of 'therapy' and there's no evidence of efficacy.
No funding for support groups that were intended from the beginning to be free to the public, who were supposed to be willing participants.

Yep. And the one study that was done revealed that not only did it not help, it was in fact harmful and dangerous......by Valliant's own findings.  Why should there be funding for something that has absolutely no evidence that it works and could potentially be harmful to so many?

http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-eff ... l#Vaillant

http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-pro ... orrelation

[Anonymous]

And the one study that was done revealed that not only did it not help, it was in fact harmful and dangerous......by Valliant's own findings.  Why should there be funding for something that has absolutely no evidence that it works and could potentially be harmful to so many?

http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-eff ... l#Vaillant

http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-pro ... orrelation

All this shows is that it's a bad idea to force people into some kind of treatment or program. And I doubt it would've mattered what kind of rehab the participants in the study were forced into.

There can be no public funding for AA, NA, CA or any other voluntary 12-step program. They don't want or need public funding or any other outside funding. They will not except such funding when it is offered.

"It is important for A.A. members to explain to the agency officials
and judges that A.A. is strictly self-supporting (see Tradition
Seven) and that A.A. members do not accept money for Twelfth
(or any other) Step work (see Tradition Eight, on nonprofessionalism).
We work with other alcoholics for our own sobriety, not for
money. It is our responsibility to make this clear to court-ordered
newcomers, too.
As A.A. members, we are not qualified to judge, endorse or oppose
any other program in the field of alcoholism, nor is it a good idea to
give the impression that we are professional, scientific experts. We
can help only with our own experience."

-- AA Guidelines: Cooperating with Court, D.W.I. and Similar Programs, Oct. 2002

[Anne Bonney]

All this shows is that it's a bad idea to force people into some kind of treatment or program. And I doubt it would've mattered what kind of rehab the participants in the study were forced into.

There can be no public funding for AA, NA, CA or any other voluntary 12-step program. They don't want or need public funding or any other outside funding. They will not except such funding when it is offered.

You're forgettting that the majority of 'treatment centers' use the AA method or some variation.  Those places accept funding.

"It is important for A.A. members to explain to the agency officials
and judges that A.A. is strictly self-supporting (see Tradition
Seven) and that A.A. members do not accept money for Twelfth
(or any other) Step work (see Tradition Eight, on nonprofessionalism).
We work with other alcoholics for our own sobriety, not for
money. It is our responsibility to make this clear to court-ordered
newcomers, too.
As A.A. members, we are not qualified to judge, endorse or oppose
any other program in the field of alcoholism, nor is it a good idea to
give the impression that we are professional, scientific experts. We
can help only with our own experience."

-- AA Guidelines: Cooperating with Court, D.W.I. and Similar Programs, Oct. 2002

Bad idea to force people into 'treatment'.  Especially when it's got virtually a zero 'success' rate.


And this?  

As A.A. members, we are not qualified to judge, endorse or oppose
any other program in the field of alcoholism, nor is it a good idea to
give the impression that we are professional, scientific experts. We
can help only with our own experience."

yeah, right.  What a joke.  Their literature (Big Book, Twelve and Twelve, traditions etc.) ALL state plainly that AA is the only way and you'll be signing your own death warrant if you leave.

[Anonymous]

Anne, it's painfully obvious you had a horrible experience with AA meetings, but were coerced into it as part of Straight. A meeting is only as good as its members, and I can just imagine that a meeting approved by Straight might have been full of Straight supporters and/or washed 'graduates.'

If you were to develop a serious problem with addiction and were seeking a volunteer support group, I would steer you away from anything involving a 12-step philosophy. It's pretty clear that due to your past negative experiences with AA, it is unlikely you would get any benefit from it. In that event, there are plenty of other support groups that might be more appealing.

For those that find the 12 steps helpful or useful, great. For those that don't, no problem. The court-mandated or program-mandated meeting attendence b.s. is a real problem, and one that many AA/NA attendees address for themselves by simply finding another meeting that doesn't include people who are forced to attend, or forced to listen to a bunch of b.s. like the things you apparently were told.

[Anne Bonney]

Ok, great.  That's how you see it.  I see it differently.  I see it as harmful in and of itself.  I don't care if it helps a 'few' people.  IMO, it damages far more than it ever helps, is an integral part of the BM facilities and is a cult.  Difference being, I have evidence to back that up.