Alcoholics Anonymous: is it a religion, does it work?

[greyline]

I did a search at iidb for "alcoholics anonymous" and got zero hits (although infidels.org has many). So I wanted to talk about AA and 12-step programs.

The first time I read the 12 steps, many years ago, I was stunned by the number of times God (or Higher Power, depending on the version) was mentioned. Even without knowing what I now know about the way AA works, I thought it sounded suspiciously like a religion. Having heard vague references to AA's good works, I thought that in reading the 12 steps (purely out of interest - I didn't require its services) I would discover the secret that alcoholics need to know to stop drinking. Yet I noted that not one of the steps actually gives advice on how to stop drinking.

I have an atheist acquaintance who has been going to AA for 20 years and swears by it. I don't understand how an atheist deals with the 12-step philosophy, which requires a "higher power". Someone I know uses the ocean as her higher power. Now, while the ocean is certainly physically stronger than a human, I don't understand what use there is in "turning her will and her life over to the care of" an inanimate thing.

Considering the pervasiveness of 12-step programs in America, and the fact they are often the only offered treatment for addicts (whether the addiction be for drink, drugs, sex, shopping or food), as well as the fact that law-breaker addicts may be forced into AA treatment despite its religious nature, and that AA is notoriously unsuccessful in stopping people from drinking, my question to the infidels out there is: Is it okay for me to lose all respect for 12 step programs?

12 STEPS for reference:
Step 1:
We admitted we were powerless over things we believed we should control, and that our lives had become unmanageable.

Step 2:
Came to believe that a power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity.

Step 3:
Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of our Higher Power as we understood this Higher Power.

Step 4:
Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves.

Step 5:
Admitted to our Higher Power, to ourselves, and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs.

Step 6:
Were entirely ready to have our Higher Power remove all these defects of character.

Step 7:
Humbly asked our Higher Power to remove our shortcomings.

Step 8:
Made a list of all the people we had harmed, and became willing to make amends to them all.

Step 9:
Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others.

Step 10:
Continued to take personal inventory and when we were wrong promptly admitted it.

Step 11:
Sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with our Higher Power as we understood this Higher Power, praying only for knowledge of this Higher Power's will for us and the power to carry that out.

Step 12:
Having had a spiritual awakening as a result of these Steps, we tried to carry this message to other people who feel stuck; and to practice these principles in all our affairs.

[Oxymoron]

I don't know too much about it, but it does seem that the nature of the "higher power" is very much down to the interpretation of both the local AA and the victim as an individual. Could be "family and close friends", for example? Not sure about the ocean, but whatever works... (or doesn't).

It all sounds a bit hocus-pocus to me. But then again, I've never been so addicted to something that it threatened to destroy my life; by the time you are in that position, you are not going to be so discerning. The trick if you want to maintain intellectual integrity is to try to avoid getting there, I guess.

[greyline]

Originally posted by Oxymoron
I don't know too much about it, but it does seem that the nature of the "higher power" is very much down to the interpretation of both the local AA and the victim ...


A second topic I was going to mention, but didn't because my post was getting too long, is the disease concept of alcoholism. I'm in total disagreement with AA here: alcoholism is not a disease and doesn't have "victims" (since you mentioned the word :) ).

All the evidence I've gathered convinces me that alcoholics are making a lifestyle choice. They drink because they choose to drink. They have the ability to stop buying that bottle or raising that glass to their lips, but they choose not to exercise it.

This impacts on the way alcoholics view themselves, and on which methods of "treatment" will be successful.

I have to say that the notion of being "powerless" (per step 1) over their own fate and doomed to a life-long struggle with an incurable disease is a truly terrible way to indoctrinate people who seek help managing their lives.

[Oxymoron]

Originally posted by greyline
I have to say that the notion of being "powerless" (per step 1) over their own fate and doomed to a life-long struggle with an incurable disease is a truly terrible way to indoctrinate people who seek help managing their lives.
I agree. There is always a choice. But then maybe that is the difference. Maybe certain substances, in certain people, just destroy any belief they might have that there is a choice. And so they become victims of their own Victim Complex, to abuse an appropriate-sounding term in a pleasingly yet disturbingly self-referential way.

In other words, an alcoholic may believe themselves to be powerless, victims, whatever, which certainly means that this is very real to them, perhaps as real as any other belief they might have.

I do agree that AA's complicity with this mistaken view is odd. However, maybe telling people that they are in the sorry state that they are by choice rather than as the result of an addictive substance just results in depression, lack of motivation to change, and suicides. In order to accomodate The Truth and start dealing with it, people have to be in a certain frame of mind, and maybe alcoholics just aren't capable of being there.

[Hazel-rah]

Beginning with Step 1, participants are turning over responsibility for everything they do or don't do to something external. At no point does any change occur internally; nor is there accountability within the individual.

Sounds exactly like religion. If it's good, Goddiddit. If it's bad, the devil made me do it. Never is it: I made the choice and every action I have taken to get in this position--and every action I take to get out of it-- is my decision. Even if alcoholism is a disease, there's never any personal, internal action required to seek treatment and a cure, as there is for cancer or any other ailment.

So a supposedly cured alcoholic will never recognize that he has the willpower and discipline to stop drinking. It will always be God (or whatever HP he decides on), and not him. To me, that's not a cure.

[Toto]

1. You didn't find any topics because the search function is not working, or your are looking in the wrong place. This has been discussed in Church State Separation / Secular Activism.

2. This is not a "non-Abrahamic" religion. It was founded by Christians and is promoted by Christians as a sort of soft sell of Christianity to a secular age.

3. There are some 12 step programs and some AA meetings that are secular and downplay the "higher power" bit. There are also non-higher power based programs, like Secular Organizations for Sobriety (http://www.cfiwest.org/sos/index.htm).

4. If it works for some people, don't knock it. But don't be taken in by the hype that people need God to get their lives straight.

[Deacon Doubtmonger]

Originally posted by greyline
...which requires a "higher power". Someone I know uses the ocean as her higher power. Now, while the ocean is certainly physically stronger than a human, I don't understand what use there is in "turning her will and her life over to the care of" an inanimate thing.
This is intended for those who don't wish to posit a sky-snot as a higher power. One AA writer once mentioned you could use a bedpan as a higher power, and another noted you could use the AA group itself -- that "GOD" stood for "Group of Drunks."

Originally posted by Toto
3. There are some 12 step programs and some AA meetings that are secular and downplay the "higher power" bit. There are also non-higher power based programs, like Secular Organizations for Sobriety.
See also Rational Recovery. (http://www.rational.org)

[greyline]

Originally posted by Toto
2. This is not a "non-Abrahamic" religion. It was founded by Christians and is promoted by Christians as a sort of soft sell of Christianity to a secular age.


Excuuuuuuuuse me.

I did look at the list to decide where to start the topic. There are many non-Christians involved in AA so I don't see it as a Christian religion regardless of its origins.


Originally posted by Toto
4. If it works for some people, don't knock it. But don't be taken in by the hype that people need God to get their lives straight. [/B]

Actually, I will knock it even if it works (and its success rate is appalling): the main reason I knock it is because people can be forced into AA meetings by a judge, in order to stay out of jail, get access to their children, etc.

[Jackalope]

I'll have to agree with greyline here. The "success" rate is lower than placebo. I worked in a "social model" detox while I was doing undergraduate fieldwork. Both the lack of any real treatment and the huge number of returns we saw were enough to make me decide I didn't want to work in substance abuse.

[Aquila ka Hecate]

I'm an ex member of AA.

Since the age of 29 I have been to meetings, working the programme and not staying sober.

Only when I got a chance to rely on myself alone did I finally defeat my problems.

As an ex drunk and drug addict, I've got to say that AA turns my stomach-it's not just a religion, it's a cultish religion (hyperbole, anyone?).

Listen to the next 'recovering addict' that you hear telling their story on air sometime. The words and phrases they use will almost certainly be from a stock of such used by these cult members.
I know them all by heart.

I have a suspicion that what brings some people around in AA is the cameraderie, the sense of belonging together to a body of people who are fighting this thing-but of course, if that's all it is, no real change will be effected.

The change has to be at a far greater depth than that-and no,it's got nothing to do with a god, or higher power of any sort.
It has to do with me, on my own, taking charge of my life for a damn change and deciding I didn't like being a slow suicide.

The hammering of the 'if you don't work the program you're going to slip' and '90 meetings in 90 days' mantras is gauranteed to cause some people to fail-it's a sort of escape clause for them.

Frankly I think it's high time AA and other 12-step programmes were outed as the dependance-encouraging cults that they are.

Sobriety is about responsibility-personal responsibility, not reliance on some surrogate daddy.

Terri

[andy_d]

Originally posted by Oxymoron
It all sounds a bit hocus-pocus to me.

Of course it's hocus-pocus. Beating addiction is a mind game.

It's about changing habits, attitudes, ways of relating to people, etc. The mind plays games with us, why shouldn't we turn the tables and play games back? It works.

I think the concept of a Higher Power has been left deliberately vague. People can use whatever they're comfortable with. I think that's fine if it works. I'm more interested in seeing someone beat their addiction than resolve the kind of nifty philosophical issues we discuss on this website.

Addicts are fragile. I think we can cut them some slack and allow them to use crutches. Just as long as they are given enough strength to discard those crutches when they've healed enough.

[greyline]

Originally posted by andy_d
I think the concept of a Higher Power has been left deliberately vague. People can use whatever they're comfortable with. I think that's fine if it works. I'm more interested in seeing someone beat their addiction than resolve the kind of nifty philosophical issues we discuss on this website.

This was the basis for my question: does AA work? Because AA's own stats show that it doesn't.

Originally posted by andy_d
Addicts are fragile. I think we can cut them some slack and allow them to use crutches. Just as long as they are given enough strength to discard those crutches when they've healed enough.

This sounds like a good idea. But again, it's not AA, which teaches that you need the crutches for the rest of your life because you are, and always will be, powerless in the face of the demon drug.

[Heurismus]

Deacon Doubtmonger's GOD=Group of Drunks. I've just had a Euclidian moment there; is the man on to something?

Come back on this one please! Or I'll post as new thread!

Group of Drunks, its all starting to make sense now. That's why he couldn't organise a piss-up in a brewery! And why good old Ben Johnson told us that ale was a sign of God's love.

Alcohol has always been used by some more extreme practitioners as a 'pathway' to god, and then the other group of extreme practiotioners came along and dried them out. Flux and flow, flux and flow! And as to the Salvation Army...!

:notworthy

[brighid]

A second topic I was going to mention, but didn't because my post was getting too long, is the disease concept of alcoholism. I'm in total disagreement with AA here: alcoholism is not a disease and doesn't have "victims" (since you mentioned the word ).

Perhaps you aren't the child of an alcoholic or drug addict, and I can personally attest that alcoholism has many victims and addiction is not such a simple thing that is can be boiled down to mere "choice."

When your parent is nice and loving while sober, but an abusive ass when drunk with a penchant for viscious and cruel behavior, particularly beating his/her children ... you become a victim of alcoholism.

When you watch as a loved one spirals down the unavoidable road of addiction, first destroying himself physically and mentally, then destroying his future, and later harming everyone he comes in contact with ... you understand that addiction has many victims, far too many who are unwitting victims of the diabolical control of addiction takes over many people.

When you see you sister huddled in a fetal position, rocking back and forth, sweating, shivering, nearly convulsing, foaming at the mouth and in utter agony as she joneses for another heroin fix and the pain and mental anquish becomes so overwhelming she nearly goes insane in front of you ... you understand that addiction is not a simple choice and that the victims are many ... including the unborn child she aborted so it would not be born deformed because of her heroin use ...

I have seen the scourge of alcoholism and drug addiction within my own family and your bold assertation that you are convinced it is a choice and there are no victims is without merit. Your technical research on the Internet or in the library is useless without real life interaction with those who have suffered from addictions and from the family members who have witnessed the struggles and ravages of addiction ...

It might be a choice in the beginning, if one is aware of these things, but eventually the simplicity of that original choice gets lost in the biochemical soup that has been forever altered by the abuse of alcohol and drugs. There is also a growing body of evidence that genes influence addictive behavior, as well as environment.

I am not particularly fond of AA, but if it helps some people deal with the psychological temptations of addiction so be it.

Control and choice is part of the equation, but to boil addiction down to such simplistic terms as choice is, imo and experience, is way off base.

Brighid

[Lavrenty Beria]

I'm a self-identified member of A.A. I attend two meetings a week. I've been abstinent from alcohol since March 1979. In fact I was abstinent from all mind-altering substances between March 1979 through July 1987, when I began to smoke marijuana again. After approximately 18 months of over indulgence, I returned to complete abstinence in February 1989.

In my opinion, the "theology" of A.A. is very childish. Additionally, it tends to ignore the fact that it began in a post New Deal American context. One could easily give one's life over to God in a nation with a developed social system. In other words, if A.A. were founded by two Polish Jews during the mid1930s, I doubt that it would've survived.

I continue to attend A.A. meetings primarily because I've developed social bonds with many of the other members. Additionally, I do believe that by attending weekly meetings, by making it part of my rountine, that I will continue to remain abstinent. When I returned to smoking pot in 1987, I hadn't been to an A.A. meeting for over six years.

I suggest that those interested view www.aadeprogramming.com

[RED DAVE]

I've been a member of AA, and sober, for almost 14 years, and I think I can confidently say that if it weren't for AA I'd be dead or, at least, brain dead.

The "spiritual" program of AA is tainted with all kinds of religious bullshit, which people are free to ignore or follow to the letter. What is at the heart of the AA program, at least as far as I'm concerned, is the following (not an exhaustive list):

1. Alcoholism is a disease. There are profound differences in the brain chemistry of alcoholics and nonalcoholics. Alcoholism is akin to schizophrenia.

2. In addition to the above, alcoholics have an abnormal reaction to alcohol: it makes us feel sane! The raving cacaphony in my mind was stilled when I drank. This is not true of nonalcohlics.

3. Once an alcoholic starts to drink, for a whole host of reasons, including a physical craving, we have a physical compulsion to continue to drink.

4. The condition of alcohol doesn't go away any more than the condition of schizophrenia.

5. Presence at AA meetings, and following some version of the program of AA, keeps about 10% of the alcoholics in the US sober.

6. Many alcoholics in urban areas are atheists or agnostics. In New York, nonbelief is probably as common as belief, and there are many atheist meetings.

7. The famous 12 steps are a system of personal, psychological development that helps recovering drunks deal with the overwhelming feelings of guilt that plague us, plus the hash that most of us have made of our lives.

Anyone who wants to discuss this in terms of their own problem, please send me a pm.

RED DAVE

[greyline]

Originally posted by brighid
[B]When your parent is nice and loving while sober, but an abusive ass when drunk with a penchant for viscious and cruel behavior, particularly beating his/her children ... you become a victim of alcoholism.

This is quite clearly not the point I was making. A child can certainly be the victim of his parent's bad behaviour, yes.



Originally posted by brighid [B]
When you watch as a loved one spirals down the unavoidable road of addiction

It is totally, 100% avoidable. No one puts a gun to anyone's head to force them to start drinking, to have the first hit, or to lift the glass or the needle each and every time an addict performs this act.



Originally posted by brighid
[B]I have seen the scourge of alcoholism and drug addiction within my own family and your bold assertation that you are convinced it is a choice and there are no victims is without merit. Your technical research on the Internet or in the library is useless without real life interaction with those who have suffered from addictions and from the family members who have witnessed the struggles and ravages of addiction ...

How could you know what I've witnessed?



Originally posted by brighid
[B]It might be a choice in the beginning, if one is aware of these things, but eventually the simplicity of that original choice gets lost in the biochemical soup that has been forever altered by the abuse of alcohol and drugs. There is also a growing body of evidence that genes influence addictive behavior, as well as environment.

This is actually highly debatable.

[greyline]

Originally posted by RED DAVE
1. Alcoholism is a disease. There are profound differences in the brain chemistry of alcoholics and nonalcoholics. Alcoholism is akin to schizophrenia.

This is simply not true - there are no "profound" differences, although the AA line is that it's part of your genetic makeup. There's no proof of this.

Alcoholism is a "disease" so that medical insurance will pay for treatment. It bears no resemblance to any other kind of disease. Does a "shopaholic" have a disease, too? Does a food-addicted obese person have a disease?


Originally posted by RED DAVE
2. In addition to the above, alcoholics have an abnormal reaction to alcohol: it makes us feel sane! The raving cacaphony in my mind was stilled when I drank. This is not true of nonalcohlics.

While this is no doubt true of some alcoholics, it's not true of all. And many people with raving cacophonies don't resort to alcohol.


Originally posted by RED DAVE
3. Once an alcoholic starts to drink, for a whole host of reasons, including a physical craving, we have a physical compulsion to continue to drink.

This is a handy way of saying it, and a handy way to absolve yourself of responsibility, but it's not literally true.


Originally posted by RED DAVE
4. The condition of alcohol doesn't go away any more than the condition of schizophrenia.

Actually it does: when you stop drinking and take total responsibility for your actions.


Originally posted by RED DAVE
5. Presence at AA meetings, and following some version of the program of AA, keeps about 10% of the alcoholics in the US sober.

Compared to 20-30% of addicts who stop drinking without any treatment at all. Hmm.

[RED DAVE]

From greyline:This [alcoholism is a disease] is simply not true - there are no "profound" differences, although the AA line is that it's part of your genetic makeup. There's no proof of this.

The Disease Concept of Alcoholism (http://www.familiesofaddiction.com/concept.htm)

Alcoholism is a "disease" so that medical insurance will pay for treatment. It bears no resemblance to any other kind of disease. Does a "shopaholic" have a disease, too? Does a food-addicted obese person have a disease?.

I can't comment, really, on people with other addictions. I want to say this. The disease concept of alcohol was devised long before medical insurance covered rehabs, etc. This remark is cute but heartless.

While this [raving cacophonies in the head] is no doubt true of some alcoholics, it's not true of all. And many people with raving cacophonies don't resort to alcohol.

I'm sure it's not true of all alcoholics. But it seems to be true of most us. And yes, many people with the screemie-meemies in their brains don't drink. Some of them aren't alcohoics.

This is a handy way of saying it, and a handy way to absolve yourself of responsibility, but it's not literally true.

Again, cute but wrong and heartless. What you are doing is making will power into an absolute. It isn't. Will is a function of the brain, and if that portion of the brain the controls will in a certain area is itself damaged, there will be a problem with will power in that area.


Actually it does: when you stop drinking and take total responsibility for your actions.

This is a profoundly religios statement: an assertion of truth in the absence of facts but in the presence of faith.

[/QUOTE]Compared to 20-30% of addicts who stop drinking without any treatment at all. Hmm.[/QUOTE]


All true, but what does that have to do with several million alcoholics who stay sober in AA?

Frankly, greyline, your attitude reminds me of some 17-year-old atheist, who's read a book or two, and thinks they know everything about religion. I mean, why the hostility towards AA?

RED DAVE

[RED DAVE]

From greyline:This [alcoholism is a disease] is simply not true - there are no "profound" differences, although the AA line is that it's part of your genetic makeup. There's no proof of this.

The Disease Concept of Alcoholism (http://www.familiesofaddiction.com/concept.htm)

Alcoholism is a "disease" so that medical insurance will pay for treatment. It bears no resemblance to any other kind of disease. Does a "shopaholic" have a disease, too? Does a food-addicted obese person have a disease?.

I can't comment, really, on people with other addictions. I want to say this. The disease concept of alcohol was devised long before medical insurance covered rehabs, etc. This remark is cute but heartless.

While this [raving cacophonies in the head] is no doubt true of some alcoholics, it's not true of all. And many people with raving cacophonies don't resort to alcohol.

I'm sure it's not true of all alcoholics. But it seems to be true of most us. And yes, many people with the screemie-meemies in their brains don't drink. Some of them aren't alcohoics.

This is a handy way of saying it, and a handy way to absolve yourself of responsibility, but it's not literally true.

Again, cute but wrong and heartless. What you are doing is making will power into an absolute. It isn't. Will is a function of the brain, and if that portion of the brain the controls will in a certain area is itself damaged, there will be a problem with will power in that area.


Actually it does: when you stop drinking and take total responsibility for your actions.

This is a profoundly religios statement: an assertion of truth in the absence of facts but in the presence of faith.

[/QUOTE]Compared to 20-30% of addicts who stop drinking without any treatment at all. Hmm.[/QUOTE]


All true, but what does that have to do with several million alcoholics who stay sober in AA?

Frankly, greyline, your attitude reminds me of some 17-year-old atheist, who's read a book or two, and thinks they know everything about religion. I mean, why the hostility towards AA?

RED DAVE

[brighid]

This is quite clearly not the point I was making. A child can certainly be the victim of his parent's bad behaviour, yes.

Except that your claims is that alcoholism has not victims, but thank you for clarifying your position.

It is totally, 100% avoidable. No one puts a gun to anyone's head to force them to start drinking, to have the first hit, or to lift the glass or the needle each and every time an addict performs this act.

No, no one holds a gun to anyone's head but that does not make addiction 100% avoidable. Why can some people drink and not become addicted - pure will power, or something more including environmental upbringing, a strong internal locus of control, perhaps a good gene, or a combination of many things?

Some people can smoke pot and not be addicted. Some people can regularly indulge in a few glasses of wine, a few beer with their buddies and it's never a problem. Some people become addicted immediately. There is no simply answer, but there is evidence that the over flooding of dopamine in the brain due to the "high" causes the brain to produce less natural dopamine, thereby causing the "craving". It is not simply a matter of will.

Do I think people should ever do drugs? No. But I am also very biased having experienced what I have experienced with the devastation of drugs and alcohol. I wouldn't wish an addiction upon my worst enemy.

How could you know what I've witnessed?

Unless you tell me what you have actually witnessed I cannot know what you have witnessed. However I can make some educated conclusions about your "victimless" statements. I can't imagine someone who has experienced half of what I have would make the bold assertation that alcoholism has no victims and therefore I felt it necessary to counter your assertation with my own experiences. I felt your comments were insensitive to the many people who have been a victim of a parent, lover, sibling, friend or simply a neighbor who drove drunk one night and killed their husband or child, or who, because of their meth addiction robbed your house, etc.



This is actually highly debatable.

Then debate it here with actual evidence.

Brighid

[greyline]

Originally posted by brighid
Except that your claims is that alcoholism has not victims, but thank you for clarifying your position.

This is highly disingenuous of you. The context of my comment was clearly in terms of alcoholism as a disease. A cancer patient is a victim of cancer because cancer is a disease. An alcoholic is not a victim of alcoholism because alcoholism is not a disease.



Originally posted by brighid No, no one holds a gun to anyone's head but that does not make addiction 100% avoidable. Why can some people drink and not become addicted - pure will power, or something more including environmental upbringing, a strong internal locus of control, perhaps a good gene, or a combination of many things?

It is a combination of many things, yes. Just like any behaviour is a combination of many things. And that's what alcoholism is: a behaviour.


Originally posted by brighid It is not simply a matter of will.

Raising a glass to your mouth, or a needle to your arm, is absolutely a matter of will. I'm not denying the concept of addiction, but it's not some incurable "disease". It is a behaviour. A change in attitude alters the behaviour. This takes will power and sometimes it's damn hard. This is in fact how most people give up drugs and drinking - they simply decide to stop. Often it's because they decide they have something to live for - eg. their circumstances change. Or they just get fed up. Curing alcoholism is a decision.

You can't cure cancer with a decision. You can't cure chicken pox by deciding not to have it.

You cure alcoholism by deciding to stop drinking. Alcoholism is not a disease.

[greyline]

Originally posted by RED DAVE
The Disease Concept of Alcoholism (http://www.familiesofaddiction.com/concept.htm)

This page contains not one piece of empirical evidence, nor even a citation to empirical evidence.


Originally posted by RED DAVE
I can't comment, really, on people with other addictions. I want to say this. The disease concept of alcohol was devised long before medical insurance covered rehabs, etc. This remark is cute but heartless.


No, it was not. Medical insurance began covering it in the 50s-60s when it became a "disease". Before then, alcoholism was regarded as essentially a moral failing. No doubt that's why the founders of AA recommended Jesus Christ as the solution.



Originally posted by RED DAVE Again, cute but wrong and heartless. What you are doing is making will power into an absolute. It isn't. Will is a function of the brain, and if that portion of the brain the controls will in a certain area is itself damaged, there will be a problem with will power in that area.

What I think it heartless is to brainwash addicts into thinking they have an incurable disease, that they are powerless to combat. I find this a pathetic attitude.

What is the evidence that alcoholics have a damaged brain with respect to will power? And I don't mean from the effects of alcohol - obviously excessive alcohol damages lots of organs. I mean what evidence is there that they had a disease that removed their will power regarding alcohol and turned them into alcoholics?


Originally posted by RED DAVE This is a profoundly religios statement: an assertion of truth in the absence of facts but in the presence of faith..

What have you said that is any different?


Originally posted by RED DAVE
Compared to 20-30% of addicts who stop drinking without any treatment at all. Hmm.
All true, but what does that have to do with several million alcoholics who stay sober in AA?

My point was that AA's failure rates don't reflect well on AA's philosophy, ie. the disease concept of alcoholism. Which is, incidentally, an American concept and not widely held outside the country.

How do 20-30% of alcoholics cure themselves with no treatment if they have an "incurable disease"? What does behavioual-type therapy with a 70% success rate of *curing* this non-disease tell us about the validity of the disease concept of alcoholism?


Originally posted by RED DAVE Frankly, greyline, your attitude reminds me of some 17-year-old atheist, who's read a book or two, and thinks they know everything about religion. I mean, why the hostility towards AA?

As per my original post, it's because alcoholics can be forced into these ineffective treatment programs by a court of law. And since AA fulfils the requirements of a religion, that's a violation of the separation of church and state.

Almost all treatment programs in America are 12-step programs, so I guess the judge has little choice. AA is pervasive because it removes personal responsibility, and everyone likes to find something else to blame for their problems. Yet AA rarely works. There are far more effective treatment programs out there, but as long as alcoholism is an "incurable disease", AA has its lifelong congregation spreading the word.

[brighid]

This is highly disingenuous of you. The context of my comment was clearly in terms of alcoholism as a disease. A cancer patient is a victim of cancer because cancer is a disease. An alcoholic is not a victim of alcoholism because alcoholism is not a disease.

It certainly is not. I interpreted your post in plain terms. You stated alcoholism "has no victims" and if you meant it ONLY within the context of a disease process it was not clear to me. I responded genuinely as to my best estimation of what "no victims" meant within the context of that post. As you do not know my what motivates me, or whether I am genuine or otherwise it is rather rude of you to attribute "highly disingenuous" motives to my post. Until you can read my mind I would suggest stearing away from comments that attribute motives to anyone.

Your claim that alcoholism is not a disease is one you will have to support with empirical data. There seems to be quite a bit of disagreement within the medical and scientific communities as to your specific claim.

Present your empirical evidence and let the group have it.

Brighid

[RED DAVE]

From greyline:AA is pervasive because it removes personal responsibility, and everyone likes to find something else to blame for their problems.

Before you make a statement like that, you better learn what goes on in AA. AAs rather 1930ish principles are "updated" constantly. When AA began, it was made up mostly of middle-class White, Christian males. This is no longer the case, and it's working ideology is now quite different from those of the founders.

As a 14-year member, I think I know better than you. AA does not and never has removed personal responsibility from the alcoholic for his or her drinking. Quite the contrary. No one takes a drink but me. No one is responsible but me.

What AA, essentially, teaches is that alcoholism is a complex condtion (prefer that word?) that requires a multitude of treatments, the primary one of which is personal abstinence.

Like I said, I ought to know. I've been there, and I am there.

RED DAVE

[Aquila ka Hecate]

Red Dave,

I may have to gently disagree with you here.

I've been in AA since 1989, and I do find something of the relief from personal responsibility to which greyline is referring.

Perhaps it's only my take, and perhaps I was an unsuitable candidate for AA, but I did find a pervasive environment of 'We have a disease' leading almost subconciously to 'We are not reponsible for being in this condition'

The other major point where I agree with greyline is in the potential for the AA alchoholic to consider themselves, not just a victim, but a powerless victim, who, without the aid of that greater power, can't do a damn thing for herself.

I've taken a completely opposite tack, and have turned my brain around to such an extent that to me, now, AA seems like a defeat.

I'm in charge of my life-what I did I did all by myself, and I don't blame my genetic makeup for it.
The price I have paid, and continue to pay, for what I did to myself and my loved ones is the highest I can conceive of with respect to my own life, and I'm not bitching.

The point being that I have refused the genetic victim role as well as the turn-my-will-and-my-life-over role, and have cleared the biggest hurdle of my life by means of my own will and intelligence.

No higher powers required.

Terri

[greyline]

Originally posted by RED DAVE
As a 14-year member, I think I know better than you. AA does not and never has removed personal responsibility from the alcoholic for his or her drinking. Quite the contrary. No one takes a drink but me. No one is responsible but me.


Five of the first seven steps give one's will, and the responsibility for change, to the Higher Power.



Originally posted by RED DAVE What AA, essentially, teaches is that alcoholism is a complex condtion (prefer that word?)

Yes.

[greyline]

Originally posted by Oxymoron
it does seem that the nature of the "higher power" is very much down to the interpretation of both the local AA and the victim as an individual

And I replied:

alcoholism is not a disease and doesn't have "victims" (since you mentioned the word :) ).

Brighid, I'm afraid I don't understand how you can interpret this use of “victim” as encompassing family members and anyone else touched by alcoholism. I was clearly referring back to Oxymoron’s use of the word – “the victim as an individual”, ie. the alcoholic.

Originally posted by Brighid
Until you can read my mind I would suggest stearing away from comments that attribute motives to anyone.

Perhaps, then, you could steer away from comments that imply I’m stupid. And I would have to be stupid if I believed that children of alcoholics can’t be victims.


Originally posted by Brighid
Your claim that alcoholism is not a disease is one you will have to support with empirical data. There seems to be quite a bit of disagreement within the medical and scientific communities as to your specific claim.

Yes, there is plenty of controversy. The simple fact that alcoholism acquired the “disease” label for essentially political reasons should ring alarm bells.

[brighid]

Perhaps, then, you could steer away from comments that imply I’m stupid. And I would have to be stupid if I believed that children of alcoholics can’t be victims.

I implied no such thing. I directly stated that I found your statements wrong. If you read "stupid" into my statements I am afraid that is something you must own yourself. I am not responsible for your interpretations. Realize that attacking the argument of the individual is not the same things as attacking the person, and as ad hominem attacks are expressly against the rules of all forums here there won't be any time soon I will be calling your stupid, or even implying such a thing. Now, your argument, may in my best estimation be unsound or even stupid .. but hopefully you get the point.

I am sorry you fail to understand how I was able to interpret "alcoholism has no victims" to mean an all encompassing "no victims" interpretation. But it seems I missed something in your explanation. So let's not beat a dead horse anymore. I accept your clarification that you didn't mean to present an argument in that fashion. Let's be done with it.

Brighid

[kaelcarp]

I work in medical research specializing in substance abuse. Not very long ago, a doctor who is an expert on alcoholism gave a talk on AA here. He said that a lot of people get tripped up by the pseudo-religious nature of the program. However, he said that at the time the book (which is the central piece of AA) was written, it was viewed as very non-religious because it does not specifically endorse a Christian god. It seems religious to us now because our society is much more secular than when it was written. At the time, it did not at all.

He also said that it has been one of the most successful programs for overcoming alcoholism.

[greyline]

Originally posted by kaelcarp
I work in medical research specializing in substance abuse. Not very long ago, a doctor who is an expert on alcoholism gave a talk on AA here. He said that a lot of people get tripped up by the pseudo-religious nature of the program. However, he said that at the time the book (which is the central piece of AA) was written, it was viewed as very non-religious because it does not specifically endorse a Christian god. It seems religious to us now because our society is much more secular than when it was written. At the time, it did not at all.


The "Big Book" is packed full of religious-speak, and is specifically demeaning to atheists. It says up front:

"We don't use this as an excuse for shying away from the subject of God. When it will serve any good purpose, we are willing to announce our convictions with tact and common sense."

and

"Lack of power, that was our dilemma. We had to find a power by which we could live, and it had to be a Power greater than ourselves. Obviously. But where and how were we to find this Power? Well, that's exactly what this book is about. Its main object is to enable you to find a Power greater than yourself which will solve your problem.... [That] means, of course, that we are going to talk about God."

"But after a while we had to face the fact that we must find a spiritual basis of life -- or else. Perhaps it is going to be that way with you. But cheer up, something like half of us thought we were atheists or agnostics."


From Doctor Bob himself:

"If you think you are an atheist, an agnostic, a skeptic, or have any other form of intellectual pride which keeps you from accepting what is in this book, I feel sorry for you."


Have all these references been removed from the Big Book these days?


"Atheists and agnostics are repeatedly: pitied; told we are deceiving ourselves; told we are going to die if we don't believe in God (also known as "Him"); told that we actually really do believe in God (also known as "Him") "deep down inside" -- if we could only be honest enough to admit it; told that much of our problem is prejudice against "spiritual things" -- whatever that means -- eliminating the possibility that some of us have spent years scrutinizing religious claims (and even the claims of Twelve Steppers!); told we will have difficulties if we don't change our religious views; coaxed to join the "over half" who have had problems in this respect but are now happy believers in God (also known as "Him")."
http://www.positiveatheism.org/mail/eml8806.htm
(Written by a 1700-meeting veteran.)


Originally posted by kaelcarp
He also said that it has been one of the most successful programs for overcoming alcoholism.

Yet no treatment at all is at least equally successful, and various non-12-step treatments, that view alcoholism as a behaviour not a disease, are vastly more successful.

[greyline]

Originally posted by brighid
I am sorry you fail to understand how I was able to interpret "alcoholism has no victims" to mean an all encompassing "no victims" interpretation. But it seems I missed something in your explanation. So let's not beat a dead horse anymore. I accept your clarification that you didn't mean to present an argument in that fashion. Let's be done with it.


Thank you.

[chapka]

Originally posted by RED DAVE
3. Once an alcoholic starts to drink, for a whole host of reasons, including a physical craving, we have a physical compulsion to continue to drink.

This is the part of the AA theory I've heard questioned. I believe the argument was analagous to the anti-"abstinence only" argument: by placing so much emphasis on the first drink and how there is no such thing as having "just one drink," AA slightly reduces the chance of drinking at all, but ensures that when you do drink, you can't stop after just one drink. Whereas programs that teach alcoholics to return to moderate drinking are better at avoiding binges and benders, and have just as good (or better) success rates at keeping people from slipping back into alcoholism. The argument was that "one drink = lost weekend" is a self-fulfilling prophecy rather than a physiological issue, and that teaching people to say "when" is more effective than teaching them to say "no."

I seem to recall that there was a study a few years ago to this effect, but I can't remember where I saw this, so I can't evaluate the source. Does anyone else remember this?

[Jackalope]

I do. I'll try and find the references later, though it may be too old for MedLine. I remember getting soundly mocked and reviled for bringing that study (and a couple simiilar ones) up when I was working at the detox. I've come across studies since that show that AA's all-or-nothing method of abstinence makes for a higher failure rate. If I still worked in the field, I'd go reference hunting (or more likely already have them at hand). Personally, I think it's become entrenched, rather like some forms of faith.

And be very, very careful of what you hear doctors giving talks about. After all, the Scientology-sponsored Narconon program (not Narcotics Anonymous) that's used in prisons is also "supported" by studies. That are totally bogus, but nevermind that part. The Scientology program is in fact part of the reason that Dubya's "Faith-Based" programs went down in flames the first time around. He didn't realize the $cienos were already sucking off the public teat with their drug rehab program. Substance Abuse is definitely a field where even the studies have been hopelessly fouled by the heavy-handed way that the government does research funding.

This site definitely has it's own bias, but it'll do until I can find the real studies:
AA Deprogramming (http://www.aadeprogramming.com/index_frames.html)

[Viti]

FYI, there is a post on secular recovery programs in the "Secular Resources" sticky in the Secular Lifestyle forum.

[kaelcarp]

Originally posted by greyline
The "Big Book" is packed full of religious-speak, and is specifically demeaning to atheists. It says up front:

"We don't use this as an excuse for shying away from the subject of God. When it will serve any good purpose, we are willing to announce our convictions with tact and common sense."

and

"Lack of power, that was our dilemma. We had to find a power by which we could live, and it had to be a Power greater than ourselves. Obviously. But where and how were we to find this Power? Well, that's exactly what this book is about. Its main object is to enable you to find a Power greater than yourself which will solve your problem.... [That] means, of course, that we are going to talk about God."

"But after a while we had to face the fact that we must find a spiritual basis of life -- or else. Perhaps it is going to be that way with you. But cheer up, something like half of us thought we were atheists or agnostics."


From Doctor Bob himself:

"If you think you are an atheist, an agnostic, a skeptic, or have any other form of intellectual pride which keeps you from accepting what is in this book, I feel sorry for you."


Have all these references been removed from the Big Book these days?


"Atheists and agnostics are repeatedly: pitied; told we are deceiving ourselves; told we are going to die if we don't believe in God (also known as "Him"); told that we actually really do believe in God (also known as "Him") "deep down inside" -- if we could only be honest enough to admit it; told that much of our problem is prejudice against "spiritual things" -- whatever that means -- eliminating the possibility that some of us have spent years scrutinizing religious claims (and even the claims of Twelve Steppers!); told we will have difficulties if we don't change our religious views; coaxed to join the "over half" who have had problems in this respect but are now happy believers in God (also known as "Him")."
http://www.positiveatheism.org/mail/eml8806.htm
(Written by a 1700-meeting veteran.)




Like I said, in today's secular community, it does come across like that. I'm not a big fan of the whole thing, and if I had problems with alcoholism, I wouldn't go for AA on the basis of its religiosity. It's also probable that what was originally thought of as a progressive take on religiosity has become outdated and is now conservative, and members have developed a more conservative religious view along with it.


Yet no treatment at all is at least equally successful, and various non-12-step treatments, that view alcoholism as a behaviour not a disease, are vastly more successful.

I don't have access to any of the data the speaker had, but he had conducted a large amount of research on substance abuse of various kinds and found AA to be significantly successful compared to no treatment and compared to some other treatments. He did not compare it to other 12-step programs in his talk.

The speaker himself was not a religious man at all, and kept bringing up the religious aspect of the program as a downside because it turns a lot of people off.

[rad]

I don't have access to any of the data the speaker had, but he had conducted a large amount of research on substance abuse of various kinds and found AA to be significantly successful compared to no treatment and compared to some other treatments. He did not compare it to other 12-step programs in his talk.

The speaker himself was not a religious man at all, and kept bringing up the religious aspect of the program as a downside because it turns a lot of people off.

The data I have seen shows a steady decline in the effectiveness of AA over it's lifespan- IMO because the "higher power" began as Christ but has become anything from a Hindu rain God to none at all. In any case we have no reason whatsoever to think willpower by itself is of any more use to day than it was fifty years ago, so I'm afraid the atheist calls for more "personal responsibility" is so much wishful thinking.

I wouldn't mind seeing some independent data on the effectiveness of secular programs though.

Rad

[greyline]

Originally posted by rad
The data I have seen shows a steady decline in the effectiveness of AA over it's lifespan- IMO because the "higher power" began as Christ but has become anything from a Hindu rain God to none at all. In any case we have no reason whatsoever to think willpower by itself is of any more use to day than it was fifty years ago, so I'm afraid the atheist calls for more "personal responsibility" is so much wishful thinking.



Are you saying that AA works best when the higher power is the Christian God? That atheists don't have much hope of succeeding with a 12-step program since they have no interest in religious conversion?

[rad]

Not quite. I'm saying that within AA that seems to have been the case. As far as secular programs go, I'd have to see some convincing data that they actually work as good as the old AA did in iys heyday.

I have good reason to suspect that a merely "religious" approach is virtually useless and actually feeds into guilty and shameful feelings, as some ex AA members claim. I think the AA founders quite clearly hoped their members would become Christian. It is one thing to have some vague "higher power" forgive you, and another to have the Son of God himself (if you so come to believe) forgive and love you. I think they felt a personal relationship with God through Christ was essential to complete and permanent recovery.

One evidence of this is that in India (e.g) the AA recovery rate is only about 6%, while here it was originally much higher, on the order of 50%, although we have to depend on AA for numbers which may not be reliable. I find it hard to fathom how any program could have drawn so many alcoholics if it really didn't work however.

Rad

[kaelcarp]

Originally posted by rad
Not quite. I'm saying that within AA that seems to have been the case. As far as secular programs go, I'd have to see some convincing data that they actually work as good as the old AA did in iys heyday.

I have good reason to suspect that a merely "religious" approach is virtually useless and actually feeds into guilty and shameful feelings, as some ex AA members claim. I think the AA founders quite clearly hoped their members would become Christian. It is one thing to have some vague "higher power" forgive you, and another to have the Son of God himself (if you so come to believe) forgive and love you. I think they felt a personal relationship with God through Christ was essential to complete and permanent recovery.

One evidence of this is that in India (e.g) the AA recovery rate is only about 6%, while here it was originally much higher, on the order of 50%, although we have to depend on AA for numbers which may not be reliable. I find it hard to fathom how any program could have drawn so many alcoholics if it really didn't work however.

Rad

From what I understand, there is no data for AA's effectiveness until recent years. Whatever "heyday" you mention is theoretical.

There is no real such thing as a "recovered" alchoholic, only one that is in remission, and it is very hard to measure these things. You have to be very thoughtful about your parameters.

[disgracian]

where could one find such data?

[greyline]

Originally posted by kaelcarp
There is no real such thing as a "recovered" alchoholic, only one that is in remission...

This is the AA line but it's not a proven fact.

There are plenty of former addicts, not brainwashed by AA, who consider themselves "cured" of this bad habit - who's to say they're mistaken?

[kaelcarp]

Originally posted by greyline
This is the AA line but it's not a proven fact.

There are plenty of former addicts, not brainwashed by AA, who consider themselves "cured" of this bad habit - who's to say they're mistaken?

Well, the terminology used in substance abuse research does not include alcoholics who are cured, that's all. I think that's because people can go a very long time and relapse. They refer to it as being in remission.

[MrFurious76]

Having had to deal with AA/NA for my entire counseling career, I'm dead set against it for mainly one reason: it is in many cases the ONLY program that will get federal or state grant money in most areas. That means if you are an addict coming through the court system, its AA/NA or the highway. Considering its failure rate (and from my personal experience its easily around 80-90%) and what it "teaches" I think other options should exist for a recovering addict. There are programs in other countries that work well, and as said a large number stop without any program at all. I don't buy the disease theory of alcoholism at all after having worked with many addicts and alcoholics, and hated having to peddle it for so long once I saw how full of crap it really was.

[kaelcarp]

Originally posted by MrFurious76
Having had to deal with AA/NA for my entire counseling career, I'm dead set against it for mainly one reason: it is in many cases the ONLY program that will get federal or state grant money in most areas. That means if you are an addict coming through the court system, its AA/NA or the highway. Considering its failure rate (and from my personal experience its easily around 80-90%) and what it "teaches" I think other options should exist for a recovering addict. There are programs in other countries that work well, and as said a large number stop without any program at all. I don't buy the disease theory of alcoholism at all after having worked with many addicts and alcoholics, and hated having to peddle it for so long once I saw how full of crap it really was.

I know if I were an alcoholic, I would want something other than AA. Thankfully, where I am, there are several options available. But I live in a very liberal, secular area. I'm sure that in many places in the south or midwest, AA is the only solution, and that should definitely not be the case. There is even some research that shows that a good portion of people have more success with cutting down their drinking rather than going cold turkey. To apply abstinence as a blanket solution for alcoholism is foolish. Everyone is different, and no one should receive inappropriate treatment because they don't fall into a particular category. I think AA is generally beneficial in that it does have some success in an area where success is incredibly difficult. It doesn't work for everyone, however, and there should be options.

[The Hillbilly]

Originally posted by MrFurious76
Having had to deal with AA/NA for my entire counseling career, I'm dead set against it for mainly one reason: it is in many cases the ONLY program that will get federal or state grant money in most areas. That means if you are an addict coming through the court system, its AA/NA or the highway. Considering its failure rate (and from my personal experience its easily around 80-90%) and what it "teaches" I think other options should exist for a recovering addict. There are programs in other countries that work well, and as said a large number stop without any program at all. I don't buy the disease theory of alcoholism at all after having worked with many addicts and alcoholics, and hated having to peddle it for so long once I saw how full of crap it really was.

I'd be interested in knowing just which AA groups get government money. If that is true, then I'll go back to AA, start a group, and apply for a grant myself.

[kaelcarp]

Originally posted by The Hillbilly
I'd be interested in knowing just which AA groups get government money. If that is true, then I'll go back to AA, start a group, and apply for a grant myself.

Then you can blow it all on booze. :D

But seriously, I may be wrong, but I'm under the impression that AA is run centrally.

[RED DAVE]

From kaelcarp:But seriously, I may be wrong, but I'm under the impression that AA is run centrally.

You are totally wrong. AA has a national center, here in New York, that has no authority over local groups. At one time, it issued charters, but I think that practice has lapsed. Here are the principles upon which AA is run. They are less well known that the 12 Steps.1. Our common welfare should come first; personal recovery depends upon A.A. unity.

2. For our group purpose there is but one ultimate authority — a loving God as He may express Himself in our group conscience. Our leaders are but trusted servants; they do not govern.

3. The only requirement for A.A. membership is a desire to stop drinking.

4. Each group should be autonomous except in matters affecting other groups or A.A. as a whole.

5. Each group has but one primary purpose to carry its message to the alcoholic who

still suffers.


6. An A.A. group ought never endorse, finance, or lend the A.A. name to any related facility or outside enterprise, lest problems of money, property, and prestige divert us from our primary purpose.

7. Every A.A. group ought to be fully self-supporting, declining outside contributions.

8. Alcoholics Anonymous should remain forever non-professional, but our service centers may employ special workers.

9. A.A., as such, ought never be organized; but we may create service boards or committees directly responsible to those they serve.

10. Alcoholics Anonymous has no opinion on outside issues; hence the A.A. name ought never be drawn into public controversy.

11. Our public relations policy is based on attraction rather than promotion; we need always maintain personal anonymity at the level of press, radio, and films.

12. Anonymity is the spiritual foundation of all our traditions, ever reminding us to place principles before personalities.

Please note, with regard to money, Tradition 12. This tradition is extremely important on a day-to-day basis. AA groups can't even hold a public bake sale to support themselves. Groups die all the time for lack of funds.

AA National Organization has very little to do with the local groups beyond publishing "official" AA literature. How this will continue with the Big Book, etc., available on the Internet is anyone's guess.

AA Big Book (http://www.recovery.org/aa/bigbook/ww/)

It would be a waste of my time, and psychologically uncool for me to "defend" AA. Two days ago, I was sober fourteen years. You don't like AA, don't join. You got questions, send me a pm. I'll answer.

RED DAVE

[MrFurious76]

Originally posted by The Hillbilly
I'd be interested in knowing just which AA groups get government money. If that is true, then I'll go back to AA, start a group, and apply for a grant myself.

The AA groups themselves don't get the grant money, the counseling organizations do. What do the counseling centers use? AA. If you don't use AA teaching in your counseling centers in my area, you will not get any grants and will be met with much hostility locally. Should have clarified, AA and "addiction is a disease" is so wrapped into counseling it's hard for me to seperate them :)

Oh, and the people I counseled don't have a choice to join or not join AA. It's either that, or go back to jail/juvie. Considering the teachings of AA are so foreign to them and the failure rate is so high, something needs to be done. In the long run they just end up back in jail anyways. I still remember having no answer when a kid brought up that if your higher power is not god, and it can be the AA program itself...why couldn't his higher power be national socialism, capitalism or even a doorknob company. I ended up telling him to just make his higher power himself, because he is the only thing that would keep himself sober and out of trouble.

[greyline]

1. Our common welfare should come first; personal recovery depends upon A.A. unity.

And therein lies the problem with AA, imo. It doesn't matter if you keep drinking, just as long as you keep coming to meetings, keep working the program, keep talking the talk... The 12-step program, which contains no steps about how to stop drinking, is all about becoming addicted to the 12-step program.

[MrFurious76]

Originally posted by greyline
And therein lies the problem with AA, imo. It doesn't matter if you keep drinking, just as long as you keep coming to meetings, keep working the program, keep talking the talk... The 12-step program, which contains no steps about how to stop drinking, is all about becoming addicted to the 12-step program.

Or addicted to the coffee and cigarettes present in abundance in every AA meeting I've been to :) And talk about weird, the boys in our home we had to try to stop from using alcohol and mary jane......yet they were allowed to smoke and always had coffee brewing. Just another one of the hypocricys (spelling?) of the whole deal that caused me to leave. It's almost impossible to get someone off marijuana when the same day when they're smoking two packs a day of cigarettes and OUR EMPLOYEES are instructed to buy them for the clients if they have it on their grocery list!!!

:banghead:

[Jackalope]

>shudder<
I had to quit wearing contact lenses when I worked at the detox because of the nicotine buildup. After I took a good look at what ended up on the walls, ceilings, furniture, and even my clothes, it became obvious that the yellow gunk on my contact lenses was from all that cigarette smoke. Working in that place is probably what kicked off my asthma problems so bad. I'd been mostly symptom-free for years until I started work at the detox...
And even though we had HEPA filters in the place, it just wasn't nearly enough. I did the filter cleanout. It was scary. I'm not sure how they'd handle it today, since the current OSHA regulations here in California wouldn't allow employees to be involuntarily exposed to that much cigarette smoke.

Talking to the guys who were doing the methadone program to kick heroin, they told me that it was easier getting off junk than quitting smoking. And they'd know. Which makes the smoking at AA meetings ritual even more abhorrent, as I saw many people who only occasionally smoked become chain smokers after they "sobered up" with AA.

[MrFurious76]

For us we had designated smoking rooms, but the stench of it still filtered throughout the building. Blech. Another good reason I quit that job :)

[Revelation_Man]

I believe AA was started by and is still operated largely by Christains, usually Protestants.

Though if you are atheist or another religion, they don't kick you out, and most don't bother trying to convert you. Though some do.

I don't understand the concept of AA myself. They're basic statement of doctrine is that alcohol is evil. They want there members to completely stop drinking all-together, rather than teach proper drinking habits. They should simply teach people to know their limits. But I guess their Protestant concept of evil alcohol won't allow drinking at all. I just, I'm sorry, I can't wrap my head around this.:confused:

[The Hillbilly]

Aye mate,

It is a total abstinence program. Discriminatory too! You've got to have a spiritual experience to ,ah, overcome alcoholism. Kinda like, you've got to accept jesus to get to heaven. Boloney, if you ask me.

BTW, weren't no heaven till man invented it. Weren't no alcoholics till man invented em.

[AtheistSalmon]

American Atheists used to have an in-depth page about AA. My last experience with AA was total discuss with having to sit through prayers, god this and that, and logical fallacies by the dozen -- just like church. My turn came around and I said, "Hi, my name is X and I am an ex alcoholic and an Atheist. Today I am going to tell you how Atheism and rational thought..." I got two paragraphs in before being rudely interrupted and physically removed in which I swung of this asshole god-freak and some "good ol' country girl" wielded her cell phone and said I am calling the police. Stunned, and grinning that I just punched a fundee in the jaw, I got in my car and speed away, turned off a remote road, and parked in a patch of trees, off road, and busted out laughing. And they say they are tolerant? Well, I am sure most groups are, and would just grudgingly listen to anyone's views, but there are bad apples in any group. I have never gone back. I have freewill to choose what to do and do not need credulous, superstitious, memes to tell me otherwise.

[acronos]

posted by AtheistSalmon
I have freewill to choose what to do and do not need credulous, superstitious, memes to tell me otherwise.I am floored by the irony in this statement.

posted by greyline
Raising a glass to your mouth, or a needle to your arm, is absolutely a matter of will. I'm not denying the concept of addiction, but it's not some incurable "disease". It is a behavior. A change in attitude alters the behavior. This takes will power and sometimes it's damn hard.Why is it hard? If it is only a matter of will, why is it hard? Is it possible that factors outside of the will could make it harder? Maybe hard enough that no amount of will could overcome it.

If a person who is suicidal takes an anti-depressant, do you think it is possible that that would have an effect on the chances that they will go through with it. Say this person who is on an anti-depressant is suddenly removed from the drug and goes through withdrawal and a severe depression. She stopped taking the drug because she was happy and thought she was cured. This person commits suicide. Do you think the drug could have been a factor in her change of will?

Do you think a person who is taking LSD and jumps off a building thinking he could fly has the same mental faculties to judge the consequences of that action as he would have had off the influence of the drug? Drugs can influence mind. State of mind can also influence actions. An angry person will make different decisions in exactly the same circumstances than when that same person is sad. If drugs can influence our minds, then our actions are not solely the result of our will. Who we are is not a constant. In other words, the ability to make decisions can be influenced by factors that are outside of our control. (in the above example the guy was injected with the LSD against his will to keep you from missing the point) Just as the above drugs change the chemicals in the brain, so does addiction. It is NOT just a matter of will. The addiction affects the will. When sitting without an intense craving for a cigarette a person may decide that they want to quit, yet be unable to maintain that decision in the midst of an craving attack and then feel intense guilt and self loathing for their lack of willpower.

A person who recognizes that it is not just a matter of will might be able to avoid circumstances where the will has consistently failed. Such a person might avoid a cake shop if they are trying to alter their weight. Or, avoid ever drinking the first drink because they know the second one will be even harder to resist.

I actually agree with you that an addicts success or failure in his or her attempts (which were willed) to overcome the addiction will ultimately depend on the choices they make or their will. Someone who takes responsibility for what they can control will ultimately have the greatest chance of success. However, sometimes that includes admitting that there are aspects of behavior that they are not in conscious control over and working to avoid those. They might also work to increase their control over such aspects using support groups, their genuine believe that a God is watching and will be upset with them, or mind altering drugs such as Prozac. While it is nice to live in the illusion that we are always in control of our actions, it is an illusion. The reality is that who we are is made up of many things that are beyond our control and always in a constant state of flux. However, it is also made up of many things that are within our control. An alcoholic has his best chance when he can tell the difference between the two.

[Hogan]

I realize this thread is old, and the dead horse has been beaten. I stumbled onto this thread through a google search for something completely different. Being intrigued by this post and the site in general, I joined the forum. Hopefuly greyline is out there still.

I am in A.A., and I do not believe in god as he is described in the bible... or any other god in the supernatural deity sense.

my comments are below.

I did a search at iidb for "alcoholics anonymous" and got zero hits (although infidels.org has many). So I wanted to talk about AA and 12-step programs.

The first time I read the 12 steps, many years ago, I was stunned by the number of times God (or Higher Power, depending on the version) was mentioned. Even without knowing what I now know about the way AA works, I thought it sounded suspiciously like a religion. Having heard vague references to AA's good works, I thought that in reading the 12 steps (purely out of interest - I didn't require its services) I would discover the secret that alcoholics need to know to stop drinking. Yet I noted that not one of the steps actually gives advice on how to stop drinking.


This being my third time through a 12 step program (over 25 years), I knew going in I would be struggling with the whole god concept. The desire to get sober was more important to me than my lack of belief in those concepts. In later posts you mention the notion of will power and it is really just a choice to stop drinking. What I think is important for you to consider is that you can have no realistic understanding of the condition until you have lived it (I use condition because I know you disagree with the word disease). Yes, it does sound like a religion, and I ponder that on a regular basis. But again, my desire to stop drinking was stronger that my desire to close my mind to everything AA had to offer based on just a couple minor issues I had with it. In order to completely understand the steps, you really need to read the whole text, and other supporting text. The initial act of abstinence is merly will power. The steps, and supporting text, are guidelines for clearing up the emotional issues that have been created over a lifetime of abuse. Most alcoholics have serious emotional and behavioral issues that act as the foundation to abuse.


I have an atheist acquaintance who has been going to AA for 20 years and swears by it. I don't understand how an atheist deals with the 12-step philosophy, which requires a "higher power". Someone I know uses the ocean as her higher power. Now, while the ocean is certainly physically stronger than a human, I don't understand what use there is in "turning her will and her life over to the care of" an inanimate thing.


In the chapter to agnostics (in the AA book), they are very clear that the higer power concept is open to each persons interpretation. Yes, they do go on in attempts to sway your ideas to conform with theirs. For some people, this is necessary. I am not going to condemn or criticize someone that goes to church, just because they believe in something that I do not... that would only put me on their level (I say this because most God fearing people feel this uncrontrollable urge to pursuade you to their ideas). I would be a hypocrite if I criticized them for that, and also did it myself. This comes down to the individual person.... their thoughts, upbringings, cultural and environmental surroundings. Some people have lost all hope and faith in themselves and they need to believe there is something stronger than them to help them get and stay sober. If that is what they need, then so be it, I am not in any position to criticize them. For others, like myself, that have questions about the entire concept, there must be something else that works. It took me three months of extensive contemplation to figure out how I would make this work for myself. What I came down to is that my higher power is really myself. I have a lower and higher conscience. Most of my life I lived in my lower conscience. Knowing right from wrong, but choosing to do the wrong thing, treat people wrong, act wrong, etc (sorry for the overuse of the word wrong - and I know right and wrong is open to interpretations, lets not go into that) I have faith in myself that I can do pretty much anything I set my mind to (within reason). I know what I am capable of and I have proven it to myself numerous times over the years when I had to "step up". I now choose to live in my higher conscience where I must do the next right thing. This idea and concept has prompted me to start reading and learning more about ideas that may be similar (to date, have not done any additional reading) Treat myself, other people, etc, with kindness and respect. Group Of Drunks is used somewhere in this thread. I have heard that, but I chose to use "Good Orderly Direction". I do use the word god in my conversations with people in the program, and I say the prayers. The fact that my interpretation is probably completely different from everyone else in there is my own deal... its my program not theirs. Their program is theirs and not mine. Trust me, when in a conversation someone starts in about how they "just have to trust God, he wont give me more than I can handle", it pretty much turns my stomach... but who am I to criticize them? .. that is their deal, and if it works for them, awesome. During an AA meeting, there are several readings performed. One of them "How it works" is the first two pages of of a chapter in the book titled the same. It also contains the steps, presented for the first time in the book. Step 3: Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the will of God (As we understood Him). Notice the word "him" and the fact that it is capitalized. Yes, throughout the text, they teach the program based on god as they understood him, mostly the one as described in the bible. When I am asked to read the piece during the meeting, I change the word "Him" to "it". I am not criticized for this. God is a major topic during meetings, whenever I am called upon to talk, I always make sure to point out that I do not believe in god as he is described in the bible. It is my hope that a newcomer siting in there thinking "oh boy, I need to get away from these god freaks", may stick around and hear that people are able to work the program without changing their core beliefs (I mention this because I know it comes up in this thread)
Regarding the whole ocean as a higher power thing, I agree with you, it needs to be something of a little more substance... but again, if it works don't knock it.


Considering the pervasiveness of 12-step programs in America, and the fact they are often the only offered treatment for addicts (whether the addiction be for drink, drugs, sex, shopping or food), as well as the fact that law-breaker addicts may be forced into AA treatment despite its religious nature, and that AA is notoriously unsuccessful in stopping people from drinking, my question to the infidels out there is: Is it okay for me to lose all respect for 12 step programs?


It seems that you have a couple different thesis here greyline. You start the thread talking about god, which is your first thesis. But you end it with this, which is a second thesis... oh well...
I don't think it is fair to look at the success of AA as a collective whole. If you break it out and look at its success based on just court ordered attendees, and volunteer attendees, you will see a dramatic difference. I don't have hard numbers to base this assumption on, but I feel confident the success rate is much much higher for those that walk in on their own will. If you look at the success rate for those that are court ordered, I believe the success rate is abysmal. With that said, I know of many folks that were court ordered and have several years (so far) sober.
As far as the courts go... well, there are not a whole lot of choices out there. One thought may be that there are still many people that have no idea what a 12 step program is. Even if the first time through is not a success, at least they are exposed to a solution when they are ready (I am a similar situation to that... I was court ordered the first two times, but not the third). I know there are other solutions out there that are more appealing to people that question God, but they will need to show some impressive numbers before the courts start sending folks their way - I am talking shear volume, not success, numbers. Getting back to success, even if the rate is at 20%, extrapulated over millions of people going through the doors, that is a fair amount of people getting the help they need. If the program helps just one person, isn't it worth it?
Regarding your question - sure its okay, what right do we have to tell you what to respect and not respect.

What disturbed me the most about this thread greyline, is that you make some pretty strong judgments about alcoholism and drug abuse based on your internet/book studies. I am certain that you can not fully relate to this issue without having lived it just a little. You are certainly allowed to have your opinions, I just hope that you can realize you are not fully equiped to understand by merely reading some books.

finally, to those who were talking about the addictions of cigarettes and coffee... I've been drinking coffee all my life, and still do. And you will be hard pressed to find a meeting that allows smoking these days (at least here in the Pacific Northwest). Othere addictions and bad habits are issues that people address in the program all the time. I know people that have quit smoking, speeding, drinking coffee, f@cking everything that moves, etc, while working a program of AA.

[Shven]

Could your higher power be your own willpower? Or would that make the 12 step program totally contradictory?

[epepke]

As for whether it's a religion, it's historically derivative from the Oxford group's 12-step program to eliminate sin. So it's based on a religious practice, but it may have been watered down enough to be considered not particularly religious any more.

As for whether it works, I've seen several studies showing that, statistically, people who join 12-step programs have a higher rate of return to alcohol and drug abuse than those who don't.

This may be due to simple selection bias--perhaps AA only gets the hard cases. It also may be due to the training in learned helplessness that AA provides. One of the tenets is that if you have one drink you'll wind up in the gutter. This may prime people so that they follow the script if they have one drink, even if it's a cough syrup with alcohol as a preservative.

At best, though, AA substitutes one dependency for another. This may still be an improvement only if one is in one of the relatively rare AA groups that don't allow smoking.

There used to be a group called Rational Recovery that was an alternative. However, they have in the past few years fixated upon a mystical psychological technique to the exclusion of most else.

[Hogan]

Could your higher power be your own willpower? Or would that make the 12 step program totally contradictory?

I my case, I believe that is really what it is.

I had two points I wanted to make in regards to many of greylines comments

1. some people need to believe in something else because they have lost all hope in themselves.

2. Other people, who question the god concept of the program can find things that will work. What they find may be different for each person. For me, I call it "higher conscience"... which in simplistic terms can be boiled down to will power.

Fully realizing I am the one in control of how I act, and if I drink or not, it may seem silly that I subject myself to the meetings and the hard core god fearing folks. There is something to be said for the group as a whole. I stay there to make friends that have chosen not to drink or use drugs, and to remind myself about places I don't want to go back to.

To answer your question, most hard core followers of 12 step programs would say yes, that is contradictory... "our will has gotten us to this point, it must be someone elses will (god) to give us the strength to recover".

[Hogan]

As for whether it's a religion, it's historically derivative from the Oxford group's 12-step program to eliminate sin. So it's based on a religious practice, but it may have been watered down enough to be considered not particularly religious any more.

I have no doubt you are correct. There are plenty of people in the program that are fully convinced that God is running their life... I keep my mouth shut when they start that babble around me becuase I have to accept the fact that this is needed for some people


As for whether it works, I've seen several studies showing that, statistically, people who join 12-step programs have a higher rate of return to alcohol and drug abuse than those who don't.


I would be interested if you could point me in the direction of some of these studies. The %'s AA makes claims to is obviously a lot higher, I would expect the numbers to be lower than their claims. Going back to my original comments, I think all studies will be skewed a bit because they are going to include court ordered attendees. I am sure the stats for court orders is pretty bad.


At best, though, AA substitutes one dependency for another. This may still be an improvement only if one is in one of the relatively rare AA groups that don't allow smoking.


I don't know about the rest of the U.S., but I know meetings in the Pacific Northwest are non smoking meetings.


There used to be a group called Rational Recovery that was an alternative. However, they have in the past few years fixated upon a mystical psychological technique to the exclusion of most else.

I have only learned about them recently, but know nothing.

[Milky]

I think most posters in this thread are hung up on the steps and ideas of AA but not AA in its actual process.

For me AA was effective not because of steps or the book but because of AA peer pressure. Peer pressure is one the most powerful incentives for using drugs and alcohol and its a powerful way to quit drugs and alcohol as well.
Whether there are or not athiest recovery groups like AA around is moot for me, because AA already has a decent infrastructure and has meetings all over the place, every city in the country has them and practically any time of day and they are FREE. Location of meetings, time of meetings, amount of meetings is more important than whatever dogma is being spewed, for me it was the peer pressure of meeting other recovering addicts that helped me to recover not the actual 'message'. I took the steps, book etc with a grain of salt, which was my best effort. I took what I needed to remain clean and left the rest.
For this I am grateful, for the program (of going to meetings). Being involved with other addict's recovery helped me considerably, I know for a fact I would have isolated myself otherwise. I would be dead without this help. In the time spent trying to find an athiest group or one with a better ruleset, well I would have given up and started using again. This may not seem sensical, but addiction isn't sensical either. I never wanted to really call it a disease, but if calling it that makes it easier to stop using then who cares?
Handing over yourself to a group of people isn't such a bad thing, if its a decent group of people. They are certainly better people to hand your trust to then active users or even some non-users. The people Ive met in AA were decent enough, with a few exceptions. I was preached to about a specific religion or a specific way to worship a higher power less at AA then by people I've met at work or in daily life.
That being said I recomend it to anyone, for the people you will meet, the lessons learned from people, fellow addicts. What other place are you going to find other people telling the harrows of their personal experiences with addiction in a fairly neutral setting without judgement 24/7 and practically every where in the country.
'The Medium is the message' not the 'message is the message' The very experience of being around other recovering addicts helps in ways words are difficult to describe. Sift through the garbage of what other people are saying at these meetings and you retain what you need, there are plenty of gems of truth to be found.

Sometimes bad writers inspire me to write a novel more then good writers do. If they did it, then so can I. Its not what was written or how it was written, but the fact that it was published.

[epepke]

I have no doubt you are correct.

Well, it's not simply that it's religious, but that it can directly be traced to a particular old-style fundamentalist group.

I would be interested if you could point me in the direction of some of these studies.

The classic is

"A Controlled Experiment on the Use of Court Probation for Drunk Arrests" Â* Â* Keith S. Ditman, M.D., George G. Crawford, LL.B., Edward W. Forgy, Ph.D., Herbert Moskowitz, Ph.D., and Craig MacAndrew, Ph.D., [i]American Journal of Psychiatry,[i] 124:2, August 1967, pp. 160-163.

There have been a few since then, especially the San Diego study, but that's a good place to start.

I don't know about the rest of the U.S., but I know meetings in the Pacific Northwest are non smoking meetings.

Betcha there's a big pot o' coffee on the burner. But seriously, in most of the AA meetings in the US, people smoke like chimneys.

I have only learned about them recently, but know nothing.

It's really too bad, because they used to be good and were poised to become a major competitor. Then they got into this woo-woo stuff.

[DaninGraniteCity]

Did anyone watch Penn and Teller's program about AA? What do you all think about it?

[epepke]

This being my third time through a 12 step program (over 25 years),

Talk about speaking volumes.

If something doesn't work for a quarter of a century, then it's time to try something else. Something different. Clue brick time.

I remember 25 years ago, not exactly fondly, but with some elements of fondness. I've gotten better at doing things in the intervening years.

[WilliamB]

I currently have mixed feelings about AA. My closest friend and I gave up drinking at around the same time, eight years ago. He is a member of AA, and I am not, nor have I ever been. The conversations we had about alcoholism and God were essentially what made me the atheist I am today. Prior to our friendship I would vacillate between disbelief and a desire to believe. Oddly enough, the times in my life when I felt the most "spiritual" were the times when I was drunk, or drinking more heavily than usual. It was precisely the opposite with my friend, who claims that when he was drinking he was an atheist.

I drank regularly and steadily for seventeen years. My friend and I had pretty much the same history as far as alcohol was concerned, though he had dabbled in other drugs a fair bit more than I did; but any drug use besides the consumption of alcohol was quite far behind both of us when we met. Neither of us were daily drinkers, though we drank most days; neither of us ever did that hair-of-the-dog thing; neither of us went to work drunk, and neither of us had missed work or lost jobs because of alcohol. My friend and I got drunk only a few times together before we both quit, and I didn't notice anything particularly different in the way he acted while intoxicated than the way I acted, nor did he drink a great deal more in quantity than I did. Nonetheless my friend believed himself to be an alcoholic, while I never made that acknowledgement for myself. To this day I can't honestly say I know one way or the other. I may well be an alcoholic, or I may not. I simply don't know.

Since we both gave up drinking at the same time, obviously the subject of AA came up a lot. My friend believed that he couldn't just quit on his own, and firmly believed in this higher power of his, which he called God. I told him that I was pretty much an atheist and that AA wouldn't help me. I believed that whether I drank or not was completely my choice. I was planning on getting married and becoming a father, and was also on the verge of an important promotion to a management position. With these three major, life-changing events in the offing, there was simply no room for getting drunk. It was a rational choice: continue to get drunk regularly and upset my wife, look like a fool in front of my child, jeopardize my job, or give it up. I gave it up. It really wasn't that hard. My friend insisted on telling me that alcoholics can't simply make that rational choice. It just wasn't that easy, and I was fooling myself. Somewhere along the way we were having a rather heated discussion and I said something arrogant and my friend told me that I was "angering God." There was a certain kind of smugness in the way he said it, a matter-of-factness which I took offense to, and I bluntly told him not to visit his god on me. It was this exchange that stopped me from vacillating and made me take a broad leap towards non-belief.

Many conversations occured over the coming year or so, and our vastly different philosophical views about life in general came to the surface, and eventually drove a wedge between us which cooled our friendship somewhat, to the point where now, eight years later, we hardly ever see eachother. We had great times together, but underneath we were uncomfortable around one another, and eventually the topic of AA, God, etcetera, just never came up.

Bottom line is, if AA has helped my friend to remain sober, then I'd be a fool to disparage the organization. I also have another friend who nearly died due to excessive abuse of alcohol, and she recently turned her life around, with the help of AA, and is now doing well. She swears that AA saved her life, and strongly believes in God, though like my other friend she is not a Christian or a member of any particular religion. Again, if AA has helped her to stay alive and be well, I'd be a fool to try and condemn it. It obviously works for a great many people. The only criticism I could offer is simply that, from what I have observed, people in AA tend to pooh-pooh any suggestion that alcoholism can be successfully managed without some sort of rigid program. They intimate that perhaps if someone just quits cold turkey, without any program, then they either: 1) are probably not really alcoholics, or, 2) will most likely not stay sober very long.

I'm glad AA exists and that it works for some people, but I would respectfully suggest that they should accept the fact that plenty of heavy drinkers, and even some genuine alcoholics, can and have quit drinking without that program, or any particular program.

[Sgent29]

My understanding of AA having attended more than a few meetings it that they generally don't try to push themselves on people, although this could certainly differ from meeting to meeting (and obviously with a personal relationship).

The AA Big Book specificially mentions that many people are able to find other ways to stop drinking, which is fine, but the progrom is there for those who can't, or haven't been able to stop in other ways.

In AA lingo at least, you wouldn't have been an alcoholic, as your drinking hadn't become unmanageable. Just because your friend was drinking the same amount as you means that she wanted too, or was able to control her desire to do so.

[christ-on-a-stick]

I find it hard to fathom how any program could have drawn so many alcoholics if it really didn't work however. Like... how could Judeo-Christian religions draw in so many human beings when they are obviously so absurd and unbelievable? :Cheeky:

THE BIGGER THE LIE, THE MORE PEOPLE WILL BELIEVE IT.

Er, hello?! :confused: :banghead:

[christ-on-a-stick]

BTW I hope that my previous post didn't seem overtly insensitive to those who have either been harmed by alcoholism in the family, or those who have/still struggle with it themselves. My own bio-family has been deeply impacted by substance abuse issues and as such I do not take it lightly or dismiss others' experiences out of hand.

[glyndwr]

Sorry for replying to such an old message, but...

They intimate that perhaps if someone just quits cold turkey, without any program, then they either: 1) are probably not really alcoholics, or, 2) will most likely not stay sober very long.

They do suggest that. However, I quit cold turkey 6 years ago today (thus the reply). I was a serious alcholic and a total mess. Since I don't drink any more, I don't consider myself an alocoholic. However, I don't believe for one second that I can drink normally ever again, so I choose not to.

...but I would respectfully suggest that they should accept the fact that plenty of heavy drinkers, and even some genuine alcoholics, can and have quit drinking without that program, or any particular program.

Right on! I was a fan of RR for awhile (Rational Recovery), but they're charging for stuff now, so I just rely on the greatest sponser of all, myself. Selfish? Yes. But who else can keep me from drinking? No one but myself...