AA Discussion: Legit, Cult, or Other?

[Solaris]

I happened across a site that bashes AA, and shows its links to Buchmanism. For those interested (it's a lot of reading, but fascinating), here are the links:

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


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


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



And, here's the Wiki page on AA:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoholics_Anonymous


Aside from studies that show AA no more effective, and in some cases far less effective than other treatment programs, or no treatment at all... I found *this* particularly disturbing:

Thirteenth-stepping
"Thirteenth-stepping" is a euphemistic term describing the practice of targeting new and vulnerable AA members for dates or sex. Fifty-five female AA members, selected through convenience and snowball sampling, were surveyed on the thirteenth-stepping behavior they witnessed or experienced in AA, such as: feeling seduced, or feeling intimidated and uncomfortable with sexual comments; receiving unwanted hugs and flirting; observing men flirting with, pressuring, and seducing of other women; and observing men who seemed more interested in sex than in recovery. At least 50% of the survey participants experienced seven or more of these behaviors, two volunteered that they were raped by men they met in AA. Chemical dependency treatment providers should be aware of this trend, and vulnerable women like those with histories of sexual abuse should be referred to female-only groups or be trained to avoid sexual exploitation in coed meetings.[78]

A leaked internal AA memorandum stated that the UK AA service board was considering how to deal with a small minority of members being investigated by police for taking advantage of vulnerable new AA members.[79] Former members of a Washington DC Midtown AA group alleged that females were manipulated into sexual relationships with older male group members, older male sponsors were assigned to young women, members were told to cut off ties with family and friends, and others told to stop taking their medications. Several churches banned the group from meeting in their facilities, and members complaining to AA General Service Office in New York found that AA has no firm hierarchy and exercises no oversight of individual groups.


Basically, most of the information I scanned points to AA being a branch-off of a very odd cult, Buchmanism (see third link above).


Now for the really funny irony:

I happened across the "Religious Roots of AA" page when googling for pics of Mae West. It turns out she used Buchman, at one point, to stir up publicity for herself---and the way she did it is really really funny. (It's in the "Hobnobbing with The Nabobs" section... scroll down till you see her pic, and read the text below it. I personally believe account one of Mae's biographers gave. For one thing, it sounds like something she'd do, and for another---if you look closely at that first pic, you see that she did indeed meet him underneath a nude painting of herself: it's in the photograph. LOL.)

(By the way, if you've never read the wiki entry on Mae West, give it a read: she was much more fascinating than I realized, including promoting the rights of gays and transgendered, as well as women---and many thanks to BnL for pointing her out, in another thread.)

[tangentman]

"Thirteenth Stepping"--ugh, one of the more tedious and troublesome aspects of Alcoholics Anonymous. I've seen far too many early recoveries die in the water because men couldn't refrain from thinking with their dicks. That, and too many women in early recovery are too equally sick to assert themselves enough to resist it. Frankly, I've seen such behavior happen in any environment filled with drug addicts and alcoholics.

They detox, begin feeling a little better, in some cases getting libidos back. Then, as a defense mechanism, they defocus from their issues by negotiating sex with the first willing body. Fewer frustrating things for clinical staff--or A.A. sponsors working legitimate programs--than dealing with horny addicts & alcoholics.

[Major Comma]

Recently some friends tried to get me to go to a grief goup to deal with my Fathers death,
But I vetoed the idea when I realized it involved a 12 step program.
There is no 'plan" for dealing with loss.

[Jack Zodiac]

Any recovery program that requires you to admit you're weak and only some cosmic entity can give you the strength to get over your addiction is bullshit anyway, but the rest of that crap makes AA even more fucking ridiculous.

[DarkBlade]

I do know several people that AA has worked for, Greg being a particular example. I'm not sure that it's for everyone, though. I find the abuse of it disconcerting, but I suspect that you are going to find that anywhere.. treatment setups for someone addicted to one thing are sadly ripe for individuals wishing to target a person with that type of personality. Not every rehabilitational setting will be well run.

[Spike-X]

Recently some friends tried to get me to go to a grief goup to deal with my Fathers death,
But I vetoed the idea when I realized it involved a 12 step program.
There is no 'plan" for dealing with loss.
WTF? I can see the Twelve Steps being useful in a few different situations, but yours is definitely not one of them.

[Spike-X]

Also, I would in no way characterise Alcoholics Anonymous as a cult. They don't insist you turn over all your money to them (they pass the basket around, but that's just to cover expenses such as rent on meeting places, coffee, and stuff like that), and they don't insist you cut off all contact with your family. They do encourage you to stop hanging around with your old drinking buddies, but that's a pretty sensible thing to do when you're trying to give up drinking.

[Sanagi]

It's certainly not a cult. The reason AA's religious aspect is a problem is that the government favors it over other treatments. It's a matter of separation of church and state.

[MacQuarrie]

I haven't got time to wade through all of that stuff, but clearly the author has an axe to grind. This one part from the page about the religious tenets of Buchmanism, though, is interesting....
# Notice how Rev. Geoffrey Allen implied that non-clergy (i.e., Oxford Group members) were more qualified, or at least better equipped, than ordained clergy to hear confessions, because they wouldn't be shocked by what they heard. Rev. Allen declared that the poor innocent cloistered feeble-minded old priests might be harmed by shocking confessions, but some worldly, experienced old degenerates from the back alleys could handle the job with ease.

# Rev. Allen also claimed that the people who heard the confessions must be experienced sinners who have learned about the sin from their own experience.
So let's see... Logically, Catholic priests can't hear confessions about wild sexual affairs unless they have had a few dozen themselves... And murderers can only confess their sins to another experienced murderer... Right?

# Rev. Allen also claimed that unordained non-clergy (like Oxford Group members) had the power to forgive and absolve sins in the name of Jesus Christ -- that they could "stand to us as ambassador of the forgiveness of Christ" -- "Thy sins are forgiven; go and sin no more." -- which is a new religious doctrine that will certainly start some interesting theological debates: "Who needs seminaries or trained clergy? Who needs ordained ministers and priests? Some college dropouts with a couple of months of indoctrination in cult religion should be good enough..."


Fact is, according to the New Testament, Rev. Allen is exactly 100% right. According to the Book of Hebrews, all believers are priests before God, and no member of the clergy is any more qualified than anyone else. Clergy are not specially anointed to speak on God's behalf or forgive sins in His name, any more than I am. In fact, in Christian doctrine, nobody forgives sins but Christ, and he did it 2000 years ago. He always spoke in the past tense when telling people they were forgiven: "Your sins have been forgiven", "you have been saved", "your faith has healed you", and so on. It's over, it's done, you can't add to it.

So, yeah, some college dropouts (with or without any "indoctrination") are plenty good enough. Some of the best ministers who ever lived never went to seminary.

Of course, the priest class hates to hear that.

[MacQuarrie]

It's certainly not a cult. The reason AA's religious aspect is a problem is that the government favors it over other treatments. It's a matter of separation of church and state.

Possibly the most misunderstood doctrine in the history of the US.

[Alan Lynch]

Any recovery program that requires you to admit you're weak and only some cosmic entity can give you the strength to get over your addiction is bullshit anyway, but the rest of that crap makes AA even more fucking ridiculous.
I agree with that, to an extent. Surely admitting you have a problem and taking action to address it is a sign of strength? More than that, it shows that you can actually help yourself without the help of God or whatever. But AA has helped a lot of folks, so I couldn't come down on the whole thing; certainly there's problems - the above being amongst them - but there's a hell of a lot going on which I applaud.

But this "Thirteenth Step", which I've never heard of until now. Fuck that, fuck any asshole who subscribes to it, and fuck a system which promotes it as part of a recovery programme. Right there, that's where I write off AA. Fuck, that's insidious.

[Cam63]

All I know is I like beer and frown on those tell me I shouldn't drink it.

[Solaris]

I haven't got time to wade through all of that stuff, but clearly the author has an axe to grind. This one part from the page about the religious tenets of Buchmanism, though, is interesting....

Fact is, according to the New Testament, Rev. Allen is exactly 100% right. According to the Book of Hebrews, all believers are priests before God, and no member of the clergy is any more qualified than anyone else. Clergy are not specially anointed to speak on God's behalf or forgive sins in His name, any more than I am. In fact, in Christian doctrine, nobody forgives sins but Christ, and he did it 2000 years ago. He always spoke in the past tense when telling people they were forgiven: "Your sins have been forgiven", "you have been saved", "your faith has healed you", and so on. It's over, it's done, you can't add to it.

So, yeah, some college dropouts (with or without any "indoctrination") are plenty good enough. Some of the best ministers who ever lived never went to seminary.

Of course, the priest class hates to hear that.

I was more disturbed by two things in particular:

1. The "washing parties" in their campus crusade. Several sources state that the early stages of the group focused strongly on one "sin": Auto-eroticism (masturbation), and that at these "washing out" parties, the confessions of the attendees amounted to what we IMO would now honestly call "exhibitionism and voyeurism," albeit verbal accounts going into great detail, rather than (I would assume) physical demonstration, and that the confessionals had a more "orgiastic" tone than confessional, because of it:

The following year -- in December 1923 -- Princeton University President John Hibben banned Frank Buchman and his campus crusade from Princeton because of Buchman's sexual obsession, his offensive and arrogant behavior, and the obtrusive zeal, invasion of privacy, and inappropriate confessions of sexual matters of some of his converts.

It didn't help any that one of Buchman's converts had taken the innocent daughter of a Princeton Professor out on a date, and then gave her a full confession of every intimate detail of his sex life. And, undoubtedly, it also didn't help any that Buchman had told President Hibben that 85% of the Princeton undergraduates were either "sexually perverted or [self-]abusive."11


Likewise, Marcus Bach reported that he discussed the matter with those Buchmanites Ned and Aylmer:


What about Frank's personal life? Would it endanger the admirable faith of these believers if I retold the rumors that persistently drifted in from Princeton and Oxford campuses? When I brought up the matter, Aylmer dismissed it with a wave of his hand, but Ned demanded an explanation.
"It's an established fact," I supplied, "that Buchman was ordered out of Princeton by President John Grier Hibben in 1924 for saying that sex ruled the campus roosts."
"Well, maybe he was right!" Aylmer retorted.
"Maybe. But there were charges that the confessions prerequisite to change turned out to be orgiastic demonstrations. Some say the washing-out is as satisfying to the listeners as the original sin was to the confessors."


Buchmanism. Educators recognized at once that the Waterbury Student Mission was a manifestation of a sect that has rooted itself spasmodically in U. S. colleges -- Buchmanism. Mr. Frank N. D. Buchman was not at Waterbury, but was represented by Samuel Shoemaker, zealous disciple. Mr. Buchman is smooth, with a long intelligent nose, a hungry eye. He is to be seen from time to time traveling first class on the principal transatlantic liners. When at New Haven, or Princeton, or Cambridge, Mass., or Cambridge, Eng., he is persona grata among a group of serious-minded young men distinguished by their piety and their wealth. Like young Buchmanites, Mr. Buchman is a bachelor, though past 40. In what does his influence over them reside?
Briefly, the Buchman cult is distinguished from other forms of personal evangelism by its preoccupation with "washing out" from its members, by mutual confession, the strain of auto-erotism.
The Buchman handbook, Soul Surgery, keynotes the slogan, "Woo, Win, Warn." There, personal workers read:
"Take nothing for granted. No matter how respectable a man may seem, be he clergyman or vestryman or Y. M. C. A. secretary, he may still stand in need of your moral surgery. . . .
"First, learn what is wrong with your prospective convert -- either from gossip or local suspicion. There is some sin which is obstructing his free communion with God. Accuse him of the sin of which you suspect him. Then by confessing to him (man to man) your own former weaknesses you will elicit a full confession from him. . . . this is often the kind of drastic, spiritual operation which alone can prevent a superficial repentance and unreal conversion. In New York City, last winter, a university student leader came to talk with Mr. Buchman about entering the Christian ministry. . . . Mr. Buchman answered his questions on the ministry to the best of his ability, but still the man seemed unsatisfied. They had finished dinner with little accomplished, and Mr. Buchman then invited him to his room for further conversation. In time the student opened up a little more, and said: 'I'll tell you why I couldn't enter the ministry. I want my own way too much.' 'Isn't there anything else?' Mr. Buchman asked, and the student said: 'No.' Then Mr. Buchman was 'told what he should speak,'* as suspicion became conviction; and leaning forward he said earnestly to the man: 'Isn't your problem . . . ?' The barrier of pride crumbled away, the man burst into tears, and a new beginning was made on a sure foundation, which transformed the young man into a genuine personal worker and decided finally his problems concerning the ministry."
A further manifestation of Buchmanism is the "Buchman house party," a week-end gathering of young people of both sexes in the home of some wealthy convert at which strenuous efforts are made to "wash out" all present.
Significance. A very large proportion of Buchmanites pass without great harm through their "washing out" and forget the whole movement when -- as in most cases -- marriage removes the occasion for auto-eroticism. Buchmanism bursts in upon adolescent imaginations with the revelation that auto-sexualism is a deadly sin. The adolescent has not read Oskar Berger's Vorlesungen: "95% of young men and women occasionally practice auto-eroticism"; or Havelock Ellis's Auto-Erotism: "There appears to be little reliable evidence to show that simple auto-erotism in a well-born and healthy individual, can produce any evil results beyond slight functional disturbances, and these only when practiced in excess."
Naturally, the adolescent becomes pliant before the Buchmanite evangelist -- perhaps the first person with whom the prospective convert has ever discussed his erotic life.
Of course, Buchmanites bring with them also the less corporeal aspects of the Christian message. In so far as they succeed -- as often they do -- in starting men on a spiritual life, other Christian workers praise Mr. Buchman and Buchmanites. But they are severely criticized by fellow-Christians in so far as they confuse Christianity with the treatment of one "sin" which, it is remarked, The Founder never mentioned.


The statement of Miss B. E. Gwyer, Principal of St. Hugh's College, is no less significant in this connection. "The activities undertaken with such eager docility by the immature in years and mind are, none the less open to criticism," Miss Gwyer says, "because their own leaders seem blind to the immediate and ultimate results. Those of us who have seen simplicity replaced by glib and complacent assurance; who have watched the undergraduate of reserved or reflective disposition being alienated, perhaps permanently, from all forms of evangelical religion; who have heard indifference to every claim, every grade, of human fellowship, and every appeal of human need, except in one category, not condoned as a lapse but defended as a sacred principle, cannot accept the view that the house young people are being so confidently urged to build possesses foundations laid exclusively upon the rock" (Oxford and the Groups, pp. 69-70).
[In] Henry P. Van Dusen's discriminating article on the subject of the Groups in the August, 1934, number of The Atlantic Monthly [he wrote] "An Oxford don ... who has observed the work there sympathetically over ten years gives it as his judgement that the first impact of the Groups upon any life is almost always helpful and desirable; but that long association almost always induces highly regrettable qualities of spiritual pride, narrowness, hypersensitiveness, self-concern. His is, I think, an acute observation. ("The Oxford Group Movement -- An Appraisal," p. 251).

---see next post

[Dreadstar]

The only thing I can add is a bit of perspective. Having grown up with an abusive alcoholic, I can only dream of what my life might have been like had he attended AA, not matter WHAT its origins.

[Solaris]

2. If you read the "Hobnobbing with the Nabobs" section, the information indicates Buchman was a severe social-climber, to the point of focusing on it to the exclusion of all else, to garnering a high-style living off of rich donations, and to the point of exaggerating or outright lying (he and his followers concerned with public promotions) about his past, the past of members, and of the position of *any* person of wealth or renown who showed even the slightest friendliness or interest toward Buchman or the group.



By the way, Tod Sloan was described there as a "leader of the unemployed in East London". What the heck is that? Do unemployed people have leaders? Do they usually get together and form organizations and elect leaders? Or was Tod Sloan at that point just another unemployed guy?
At one point, Tod Sloan was a militant activist in labor causes, and he campaigned for poor children to get meals and boots, but he quit doing that when he was "changed" by the Oxford Group recruiters.

Followed link there to another section that says this:

I mentioned earlier how Frank Buchman considered any do-good social movements (other than his own) to be immoral. We have another example here, describing the conversion of Tod Sloan, a well-known East London labor movement militant:


He went in to the meeting and, as he later said, "got a basinful." He came to realize that his agitations on behalf of the unemployed and homeless, his fights for meals and boots for the school-children, essential activities which had sometimes landed him in jail, had inadvertently taken a wrong turning. "I'd always said that I loved my class and family... But I saw that the main thing I'd done was to teach them to hate. I'd said I was an idealist, but I'd made materialists out of them," he said.
(Page 263.)

Campaigning for school-children to have meals and boots is wrong, because it makes "materialists" out of them? Those Buchmanite guys were really something else. I can see his point about it being wrong to teach people to hate -- don't do that -- but abandoning the unemployed, the homeless, and the school-children because we don't want to make materialists out of them?




Jim, I agree the author Orange indeed has an ax to grind. What I have to wonder is, does he not make some good points, anyway?

One of the many studies mentioned in wikipedia made the point that people with alcoholism find different programs helpful (or in some cases no program), and that success rates are enhanced when the person matches up better with a group, versus being court ordered to go to one where the beliefs and methodology aren't a good fit for them. This makes sense to me. For instance, sticking an atheist in AA isn't going to be a good match.

One study's results indicated that, for alcoholics in various groups, it was "lapsed" members of AA who were *most* likely to indulge in binge-drinking (continuing to drink at one sitting, after having 1-2 drinks), versus members of other programs or no program. The conclusion was that the environment created within AA contributed to this because of a) the "no drink" culture, versus controlling/altering one's drinking habits, b) the message and/or group censure created additional guilt and/or rebellion in the individual, which led to bingeing out of those emotions, and c) the entire idea that one is *powerless* in the face of alcohol and must therefore rely on a higher power to stop the drinking *for* them, versus believing they have the power themselves.

I'm not saying that AA hasn't had successes; clearly, it has. For some people, the group may be exactly what they need.

HOWEVER, in my opinion the general population (and many judges) tend to think first of AA (and sometimes ONLY of AA) as the "right detox program"... and further, often the perception in the public is in some ways that merely joining AA is a kind of "magic wand," or, that for any reasonable human individual, merely joining and going through the program is guaranteed---and that if that program doesn't work for you, it indicates you truly are a bad, or weak, person. In this, I think the general public has absorbed some of the group's own mythos and attitude toward alcoholism, and those for whom AA doesn't work. Ask any person on the street where an alcoholic should go for help, and the first response out of most mouths is GOING to be "AA." It's become pervasive in the culture, with certain unconsious (and IMO, uneducated) assumptions about the group's methodology and effectiveness.

[There are also allegations that the group inflates the numbers on their "success rates"... I leave that to others to decide.]

My point in all this is not to say AA is a cult, or a nasty organization that should be disbanded. Instead, by looking at the organization's history (and because it stemmed directly from a religious movement with lots of questionable info in its background, looking at that movement as well), I hope to debunk some of those "commonly accepted assumptions" present in the general public... assumptions I'd previously held, as well.

As Rin mentioned, I know it's worked for Greg. I know it's worked for other people. But, there are many who it *hasn't* worked for, and I don't think it's good to give it the near "panacea" status the general public has given it. (Sort of an "elitism," really---which is rather interesting when viewing the parent movement's roots.) Rather, I think anyone looking for help (or relatives/friends of such) should investigate thoroughly *all* options, and approaches to dealing with alcoholism, in order to find the best fit toward health between the individual and whatever help is out there.

[Solaris]

The only thing I can add is a bit of perspective. Having grown up with an abusive alcoholic, I can only dream of what my life might have been like had he attended AA, not matter WHAT its origins.

If you changed that to "any suitable treatment program," I'd buy it a lot better. :)

[Dreadstar]

Any suitable treatment program including AA.

[Solaris]

Dread, I hope you know I wasn't trying to be snarky, there. Growing up with an abusive alcoholic parent is terrible, and anything that would make that better is a good thing.

I'm just... disappointed in myself, and in general shocked, that the overall cultural attitudes and perceptions about AA, sail so quietly along (as opposed to other treatment programs/methods, etc.)... sort of a "commonly accepted isn't always accurate, and in some cases may cause harm" thing.

Whether people defend or decry AA, or any other program... the point is to get people to actually *question*, and look around for answers, rather than accepting cultural perceptions on AA and alcoholism in general. I hope this thread does that, a little... like running across that stuff did for me, because up until then, I *hadn't* questioned any of it.

When I was approaching alcoholism, nearly everytime I discussed it with someone, they brought up AA. My initial (internal) reaction, on the little that I knew of AA, was "that's not for me." I had an internal resistance to it, that had nothing to do with my drinking problem, and everything to do with what I knew of how the program worked. It would not have been a good fit for me, and I knew it... but hesitated to say that to most, because of how AA is seen in the culture. Often, resisting AA is seen as "resisting all help, and refusing to admit you're alcoholic."

To me, an "alcoholic" is someone who drinks to excess every day, and/or stays drunk all the time (24/7).

That's not to say that there aren't other types of abusive drinking---there are. But I think labeling all those types as "alcoholic" and going with the "no drink ever again" mantra, deters many from seeking help, and also keeps them ignorant of alternate programs and approaches that *might* help them.

People who get drunk and drive, have a problem.

People who get drunk and beat up (or even just yell at) others, have a problem.

People who feel they *have* to have a drink to deal with anger or pain issues, have a problem.

IMO, going with how I define alcoholism, the people above can fit one, two, or all three of those descriptors---and still not be an alcoholic. That doesn't mean their problem isn't serious; it is, and it can cause a lot of damage. But... you might have someone who gets drunk and beats his wife or kids once a week; once a month, whatever. It's a very serious problem involving anger issues, drinking issues, AND abuse issues---but the person, IMO, is NOT an alcoholic. They're a different fish, with different problems feeding into the situation---and putting them into a program that gives the same treatment to every individual is *going* to be counter-productive, in many cases.

For someone like the person I just described, IMO they need therapy and/or a program that addresses *all* the aspects of their problem, and how these aspects feed off of, and fuel, each other. For instance, getting a person with anger issues and abuse history to go on the wagon does diddly-squat to address the two other parts of the problem; and IMO you run the risk of that person "breaking through" (beating up wife & kids) and doing those things even when they're sober.

One of the dangers I think the program poses, especially since so much of the public unquestioningly accepts the program as being a leading method to combat alcoholism, is that it vastly oversimplifies drinking problems and related issues, and also by the semi-dogmatic approach of the program and the assumptions it makes about alcohol abuse, ignores part of the package many have. Certainly, the program is going to work for some people---for some, it's a good fit for their problem. For others, it definitely is not a good fit---but often our culture places additional stigma on those who either fail the AA program, or refuse it in the first place. I think this is because some of the AA perceptions on these two things have become commonly accepted as "true" in the culture. I mean, how often have you heard people saying of someone who refused to do AA that "They can't accept that they're alcoholic"?

Yet, for many, IMO they *aren't* alcoholic. They may have a terrible problem that is drinking-related, or even drinking-triggered... but they aren't alcoholic.

I can't speak for other people's experiences with alcohol-related problems (or alcoholism); I can only speak of my own. For me, the greatest issue wasn't "never touch another drop"---it was "learning to deal with the anger/pain issues I had *without* drinking, or drinking to excess." My drinking problem was a secondary symptom; treating it by itself wasn't going to fix the problem. For me, what is working is focusing on dealing with the anger/pain issues, and taking control of how much and when I drink. Drinking to excess was merely a temporary band-aid for an ulcerating sore; not the problem in and of itself. In working on dealing with my anger/pain issues, I found it much easier to rein my drinking back in to the "social drinking" level I do enjoy. I still have lapses from time to time---but never to the excess or frequency I had before... and I continue to work on improving, to make those even less frequent, and less severe. It's an ongoing process, and so long as I'm continuing to work on it and improve with it, I'm happy with myself, because any human fails a bit from time to time. I look at overall progress, and where I'm going with it.

When I look back to where I was, and look at where I am now, I'm happy with the direction I'm going. Not only do I, overall, deal with anger/pain issues better, and deal with the act of drinking alcohol better---I also deal with stress better than I was at that time.

In going through all that, it made me look at my own assumptions (culturally absorbed, for the most part) on alcoholism and drinking problems (and other problems that are often present with it), and really begin to question those assumptions. I hope that, by bringing out some of the viewpoints critical to AA and the general population's ideas on alcoholism and alcohol abuse, and by talking about my own journey through it all, that it makes other people question what they've accepted, as well.

In the end, becoming more and better informed on the subject, however one researches it, should help people in finding the method that is best able to help them work on and fix their problem, whatever it is.

[Michael P]

I would say that not all AA's are created equal. It's a heavily decentralized program, with each chapter operating pretty much anonymously, and interpreting the central tenets of the philosophy in its own manner. So you'll get generally decent AA programs run and attended by people who generally want to help and be helped, and you'll get shifty ones run and attended by assholes expressing their own control issues through it. (This, Alan, would be where "Thirteenth Stepping" comes from, not the program itself.) Like most things created and run by people, it's the people who make it what it is, for good or ill.

In any case, I'd be highly suspicious of forming an opinion about anything using only one source, and an Internet one at that.

[rick]

But this "Thirteenth Step", which I've never heard of until now. Fuck that, fuck any asshole who subscribes to it, and fuck a system which promotes it as part of a recovery programme. Right there, that's where I write off AA. Fuck, that's insidious.

AA doesn't actually support this so-called 13th step and does not in any way promote it as part of a recovery program.

Just the opposite in fact.

Most 12 step programs, including AA highly recomend that newly sober people wait at least a year before becomming involved with anyone.

[Solaris]

I would say that not all AA's are created equal. It's a heavily decentralized program, with each chapter operating pretty much anonymously, and interpreting the central tenets of the philosophy in its own manner. So you'll get generally decent AA programs run and attended by people who generally want to help and be helped, and you'll get shifty ones run and attended by assholes expressing their own control issues through it. (This, Alan, would be where "Thirteenth Stepping" comes from, not the program itself.) Like most things created and run by people, it's the people who make it what it is, for good or ill.

In any case, I'd be highly suspicious of forming an opinion about anything using only one source, and an Internet one at that.


Thank you for pointing that out about the 13th step thing---I meant to, and forgot.

I will say that I haven't formed an opinion on AA based solely on the two sources I cited---rather, that I have allowed that to *inform* my opinion a bit. Before I ever read those articles, I had some issues with the general "set" of AA rules and methodology, and with the general population's acceptance of such. Running across those articles helped me focus on the problem I already had with all that, and reading them also caused me to want to both learn more, and to bring the discussion to this forum.

Again, I know for a fact that there are people who've been through AA and found it to help them. I'm not disputing that. I just think that it's too commonly accepted as the best program, and that some of the assumptions that program makes about alcohol-related problems (which are very simplistic) have filtered into the culture to the point that unthinking acceptance of them can be a detriment and a deterrent in helping many. Hence, I raised the question for discussion.

EDITED TO ADD: And yes, AA *is* a very decentralized program. Some chapters are going to do much better, or worse, than others. And, when you think about it, that in itself *should* be a caution to judges who automatically sentence alcohol offenders to participate in AA. I think, rather, the courts should do (or have someone do) an impartial evaluation of treatment methods and programs in their area, and create a "menu" (for lack of a better term) to use for such sentencing... perhaps accompanied by a psyciatric evaluation designed to help select the best fit for the person.

[rick]

Thank you for pointing that out about the 13th step thing---I meant to, and forgot.

I will say that I haven't formed an opinion on AA based solely on the two sources I cited---rather, that I have allowed that to *inform* my opinion a bit. Before I ever read those articles, I had some issues with the general "set" of AA rules and methodology, and with the general population's acceptance of such. Running across those articles helped me focus on the problem I already had with all that, and reading them also caused me to want to both learn more, and to bring the discussion to this forum.

Again, I know for a fact that there are people who've been through AA and found it to help them. I'm not disputing that. I just think that it's too commonly accepted as the best program, and that some of the assumptions that program makes about alcohol-related problems (which are very simplistic) have filtered into the culture to the point that unthinking acceptance of them can be a detriment and a deterrent in helping many. Hence, I raised the question for discussion.


I'm playing catch-up here.

Have you ever actually gone to an AA meeting?

[JeffreyWKramer]

I've got plenty of issues with AA, but it being a cult isn't really one of them, though some AA communities certainly are rather cultish to some degree. One thing that differentiates AA from most cults is that it lacks any sort of centralized authority beyond the "Big Book" and related writings, and some generally-recognized rules for conducting meetings, acting as a sponsor and such. Ultimately, AA groups and members are answerable primarily to themselves. Sometimes this can lead to groups which are somewhat like personality cults, and then exploitation can take place, but there are enough groups in most areas, and enough people that attend multiple groups, that this risk is pretty low; the really bad or out-there meetings tend to disintegrate, and word of mouth tends to work against the exploitative folk.

I do take issue with the AA (and other 12-step) folk that say their way is the only way a person can attain and maintain sobreity. That simply isn't true, and in fact it isn't even close to true. The fact is, AA's success rate is no higher - but also no lower - than that of any number of other treatments for alcohol or substance dependence, including individual or group therapy, motivational interviewing, etc. It works very well for some people, not well at all for some other people. There have been some studies that suggest that certian personality characteristics might help determine which sorts of people are better candidates for a 12-step approach vs. other approaches, but the data is not exactly conclusive at this point.

I also have a lot of problem with those 12-steppers who equate all medication with addictive substances, and who insist that those in recovery should go off psychiatric medications. Thankfully that isn't the "official" 12-step stance these days, but it's prevalent enough among some groups to still be a significant problem, particularly given the high rate of comorbidity between substance dependence and other psychiatric conditions. An individual with bipolar disorder and a cocaine or alcohol addiction is definitely not more likely to stay clean/sober if he or she stops taking his or her meds.

One thing I can say with certainty is that in general, the insistence on the "higher power" stuff is not a necessary component of AA. In fact, studies have shown that an AA variant developed for athiests, and which thus deletes all the "higher power" malarky, has exactly the same rate of success as does traditional AA, and that this variant program has an equal success rate for individuals who identify themselves as religious or spiritual as for athiests. Now, certainly a person who is spiritually/religiously-oriented may feel more comfortable with or attracted to a program which incorporates those concepts, which might help encourage such people to do something with their problems and stick with a program, but the fact remains that the spirituality isn't a necessary component for treatment outcome. In fact, dozens of studies have shown that the active ingredient in the 12-step model is the built-in social support. Available studies suggest that virtually any sort of approach to substance abuse/dependence - including non-12 step spiritual programs and completely secular programs which emphasize abstinence, relapse prevention, etc - which involves peer interaction and discussion and some sort of mentorship along the lines of AA sponsorship works just as well as 12-step programs.

Now, certainly the AA program came from some pretty strange roots, and it did originate with something more clearly cultlike, but this is very much a case of the movement surpassing its origins.

Thirteenth-stepping is also truly a huge program, and this is particularly the case with some 12-step variants such as those programs focused on eating problems or so-called (and very much mislabeled) "sex addicitons", which tend to attract an unusually large percentage of vulnerable female members and predatory males. Most healthy AA and NA groups use peer pressure, word of mouth and peer solidarity to counter the predators, but it still happens all too often, and newer members who haven't yet established relationships with other group members are particularly vulnerable.

[Solaris]

I'm playing catch-up here.

Have you ever actually gone to an AA meeting?

No. Everything that I've read over the years on the program (the 12 Steps, the group confessional methodology, etc.) indicated it was not a good fit for me.

As I said above, my core issues were in learning to deal with anger/pain wounds. Once I truly began doing that, bringing the drinking back to, or near, the normal levels I'd had before, was much easier. Stopping drinking wasn't going to stop the anger or pain... and focusing on the issue as being only a drinking problem only *added* to the anger and pain, for me.

Let's put it this way:

If the main tenet of the group is that one must never touch another drop of alcohol, it's not the right fit for me, because alcohol wasn't the core problem---only a side symptom. I needed help fixing the root problem. I did NOT need to walk into a group and espouse a belief (that I did not, and do not hold) that I am an alcoholic, and that by never drinking again, I will be cured and/or healed. It just wasn't going to work for me. (And that's leaving aside all the religious conflicts I have---I'm not Christian, and the program is designed for Christians, or perhaps, a certain Christian mode of thinking.)

For me, trying to participate in the program would've made my problem *worse*, not better. A lot of my issues dealt with public scrutiny and public censure, and worry over how other people see me. Going into a program (no matter how group supportive it is) that exposed me to a mindset that's geared around "what other people think of you" would've been a detriment.

[Solaris]

Jeffrey, the wiki article mentioned that, in areas where that unofficial "13th step" problem was occuring, an advisement was made that AA look to creating "female only" groups, to help alleviate the problem.

Do you know if that's been done, and if it's helped?

[rick]

No. Everything that I've read over the years on the program (the 12 Steps, the group confessional methodology, etc.) indicated it was not a good fit for me.

As I said above, my core issues were in learning to deal with anger/pain wounds. Once I truly began doing that, bringing the drinking back to, or near, the normal levels I'd had before, was much easier. Stopping drinking wasn't going to stop the anger or pain... and focusing on the issue as being only a drinking problem only *added* to the anger and pain, for me.

Let's put it this way:

If the main tenet of the group is that one must never touch another drop of alcohol, it's not the right fit for me, because alcohol wasn't the core problem---only a side symptom. I needed help fixing the root problem. I did NOT need to walk into a group and espouse a belief (that I did not, and do not hold) that I am an alcoholic, and that by never drinking again, I will be cured and/or healed. It just wasn't going to work for me. (And that's leaving aside all the religious conflicts I have---I'm not Christian, and the program is designed for Christians, or perhaps, a certain Christian mode of thinking.)

For me, trying to participate in the program would've made my problem *worse*, not better. A lot of my issues dealt with public scrutiny and public censure, and worry over how other people see me. Going into a program (no matter how group supportive it is) that exposed me to a mindset that's geared around "what other people think of you" would've been a detriment.


Okay, then I guess that I'm a little confused at your hostility toward the organization.

I certainly agree that AA is not the right treatment program for every person with a substance abuse problem, but on the whole AA is helped tens of thousands of people get their destructive behavior under control.

So what’s the issue?

[Solaris]

Regarding Jeffrey's observations about the role of "support culture" in helping:

For me, I found my "support culture" in family and friends. I was much more comfortable with this, than in seeking it from a group of strangers, no matter how much they *might* have in common with certain aspects of my problem.

I had, and have, a wonderful support culture, that's given me a lot of strength. The method I'm using is working for me, and IMO, is a much better *fit* for me, than AA would be. For other people, AA or other programs will be the best fit for them, and that's great.

[Michael P]

Thank you for pointing that out about the 13th step thing---I meant to, and forgot.

I will say that I haven't formed an opinion on AA based solely on the two sources I cited---rather, that I have allowed that to *inform* my opinion a bit. Before I ever read those articles, I had some issues with the general "set" of AA rules and methodology, and with the general population's acceptance of such. Running across those articles helped me focus on the problem I already had with all that, and reading them also caused me to want to both learn more, and to bring the discussion to this forum.

And as an outsider, without a horse in the race, I can't help but wonder how much of this is confirmation bias.

You're an outlier, Chris. Your personality, tastes and opinions run tangent to society, especially when it comes to following rules and systems devised and imposed by others. There's nothing right or wrong with that, it's just how you're built; it's what makes you you. So AA was bound to rub you the wrong way. Coming across someone else's negative opinion (and where did that come from, it would probably be prudent to ask) and going, "A-ha, I thought there was something fishy about that whole setup, and I was right" strikes me as a philosophically dangerous leap to make.

Food for thought.

[rick]

Jeffrey, the wiki article mentioned that, in areas where that unofficial "13th step" problem was occuring, an advisement was made that AA look to creating "female only" groups, to help alleviate the problem.

Do you know if that's been done, and if it's helped?


If I might answer.

There are men only, women only, teenager only and all sorts of sub-group only chapters of AA out there, and have been for about 40 years now.

[Dreadstar]

I'm glad, at least, that you *do* see that a great many people are being helped every day through AA. No, it's not for everyone. In fact, it wouldn't have been for my father, because he was quite literally, vehemently anti-god. And yet it doesn't stop my occasional daydream of the might-have-been had he tried it out. "It" being AA, quite simply. Sure, any number of alternatives might have helped as well: shamanism, acupuncture, holistic herbal treatments, shock therapy, even clinical psychology. But in the 60s and 70s, AA was the accepted route, tried and true. I personally know more people for whom it has worked than for whom it has not, and I know many folks of both categories.

It seems to be a recurring theme: We get some negative bit of information and suddenly we're ready to throw out the whole apple along with the bruised spot. A rabid bigot latches onto the bible to fuel his persecution of gays and we blanketly condemn Christianity. Forget the people for whom Christianity daily enriches their life. A man uses a gun to take the life of his family and himself and suddenly the hue and cry is "ban all firearms." Never mind the fact that the VAST majority of firearms are never and will never be used thusly.

How many times have you had to defend Wiccanism over some Ozzie Wannabe killing a cat and carving a pentacle in a nearby table?

We all seem to be looking for simple answers to complex questions. And sometimes we decide that we're looking for COMPLEX answers when the simple ones do quite nicely. The best part is, it's rarely *if ever* an either/or situation.

Life's a crapshoot. And you know what? To me, that's the best damn thing about it. I envy the guy who believes in god, who actually *owns* that faith. I envy him because I've tried and I can't make that leap. It's basically impossible without epihany, and I have zero access to such a mechanism. Likewise, I envy the guy who disposes of his back pain with a few well placed needles, the guy who beats cancer through a series of herbal treatments and positive thinking *and* the guy who can walk into an AA meeting and change his life.

And I don't want to take away their bibles, needles, liverwort or 12-steps. Let's get rid of the Fred Phelps the ephebophile priests and the predatory thirteen-steppers instead.

[Michael P]

If the main tenet of the group is that one must never touch another drop of alcohol, it's not the right fit for me, because alcohol wasn't the core problem---only a side symptom. I needed help fixing the root problem. I did NOT need to walk into a group and espouse a belief (that I did not, and do not hold) that I am an alcoholic, and that by never drinking again, I will be cured and/or healed. It just wasn't going to work for me. (And that's leaving aside all the religious conflicts I have---I'm not Christian, and the program is designed for Christians, or perhaps, a certain Christian mode of thinking.)


Well, there's the rub right there: You're not an alcoholic. Of course a program designed for alcoholics isn't going to be a fit for you. You're not just a social outlier in this case, but a statistical one. If someone gets mislabeled as an alcoholic (which is not just an emotional dependence on booze, but a chemical one as well), and AA doesn't work for them, then the problem is not with AA, but with the mislabeling. In that respect, certainly more careful diagnoses before prescription is a worthwhile approach for society to take.

[LewisH]

It gives her a group of people to connect with and has added meetings and other activities to her life so she doesn't spend so much time alone with the chance to get depressed and turn to alcohol. She's a lot happier these days.

Yes, there are religious aspects but noone is trying to brainwash her or get money out of her. She still makes her own decision on such things. I even bought her a book on Buddhism the other day.

It's not for everybody but it's not a big scam like Scientology. Still if anything that smacks of religion bothers you than it's not a program for you.

[Stressfactor]

Solaris, earlier you also mentioned that you probably thought most people's alcoholism was based on deeper, psychological or emotional issues.

While that is certainly true in most cases please do not think that people cannot become *physically* addicted to alcohol just as they can to other drugs. I know personally of at least three people whose drinking problems really were physical as much as mental. One man was perfectly happy -- lovely home life, loving wife, good kid, good job but he really *could not* touch alcohol again. It would be like setting him off on crack cocaine.

Another young woman I knew was so physically addicted to alcohol she actually experienced horrible withdrawl symptoms. She described it as having squirrels in her stomach clawing to get their way out.

The third person I knew was another woman who also had a nice life, had a good upbringing, no big problems that she was trying to drink her way out of.

So yes, there are some people who have 'addictive personalities' (for lack of a better term), there is something about the way their brain chemistry is wired up that causes them to become physically addicted to alcohol the same way certain drugs cause a physical addiction or (as studies have shown) nicotine in cigarettes causes a physical addiction.

[Solaris]

Okay, then I guess that I'm a little confused at your hostility toward the organization.

I certainly agree that AA is not the right treatment program for every person with a substance abuse problem, but on the whole AA is helped tens of thousands of people get their destructive behavior under control.

So what’s the issue?

I'm not hostile toward the group. (Perhaps you're reading hostility into it, because A. Orange is hostile to it---and you're thinking I share his hostility.)

Again, AA has helped people.

The point I'm trying to make in all this is to question the general acceptance I've personally seen, in our culture, on certain points, namely:

1. That AA is the best, or first, place to go, for an alcohol-related problem.

2. The culturally-accepted definition of "what is an alcoholic?", which to me lumps far too many kinds of alcohol-related problems under one big umbrella.

3. That the only REAL way to deal with an alcohol-related problem is to stop drinking completely.

Again, particularly in the latter two, I think AA's attitude toward alcohol-related problems and how to treat them, is far too simplified to truly address the many ways people can have an alcohol problem... and the issue I have with that is that, from what I see, their attitude has become commonly accepted in the culture as "The way to fix it," and "The way to define the problem."

Bringing it back to the personal examples, if someone (not necessarily an AA member---just someone in the general public) had said to me, during that bad time for me, that my resistance to going to AA was because "You haven't hit your bottom, you haven't yet admitted that you're an alcoholic, you're in denial," would've sorely tempted me to punch them in the face. How DARE they sit in judgement, and assume that their simplistic assumptions are true, correct, and that the program is, of course, the "right answer" for me?

Case in point: it was NOT the right program for me, and going through it was NOT going to help me heal myself, or fix the problems I had.

It's that "general" assumption in the populace, that I have my only true beef with. When you mention "alcoholism" or "alcohol abuse," suddenly far too many people become armchair analysts... and a lot of what they base their "analysis" on, from what I've seen, goes back to the general assumptions AA espouses.

AA works for some people. I'm happy for them that it's true. I'm not attacking AA; I don't think it needs wiping out.

However, I think the way their assumptions have bled over into the general populace *can* be a detriment for many to seeking *any* help or treatment, and to me, that *is* a bad thing.

Basically, Rick, I'm not kicking AA---what I'm kicking is that "everybody knows" assumption that happens far too often in the general population... an assumption that's based on parroting of AA's approach, with little real knowledge of the complexities involved in alcohol abuse.

It's like saying that every person suffering depression should take a drug, and further, one and ONLY one kind of drug---and that if you seek a different method of help, you're "refusing to admit you're depressed" and "you really don't want help."

Do you see where I'm going with this?

[Solaris]

Solaris, earlier you also mentioned that you probably thought most people's alcoholism was based on deeper, psychological or emotional issues.

While that is certainly true in most cases please do not think that people cannot become *physically* addicted to alcohol just as they can to other drugs. I know personally of at least three people whose drinking problems really were physical as much as mental. One man was perfectly happy -- lovely home life, loving wife, good kid, good job but he really *could not* touch alcohol again. It would be like setting him off on crack cocaine.

Another young woman I knew was so physically addicted to alcohol she actually experienced horrible withdrawl symptoms. She described it as having squirrels in her stomach clawing to get their way out.

The third person I knew was another woman who also had a nice life, had a good upbringing, no big problems that she was trying to drink her way out of.

So yes, there are some people who have 'addictive personalities' (for lack of a better term), there is something about the way their brain chemistry is wired up that causes them to become physically addicted to alcohol the same way certain drugs cause a physical addiction or (as studies have shown) nicotine in cigarettes causes a physical addiction.

I agree. There are people who develop a physical addiction to alcohol.

My point is that, far too often, people in general *assume* that it's a physical addiction to alcohol which is the problem, and often that it's ALL of the problem. That leaves a helluva lot of fish out of the net, IMO. :)

[Sally Sensational]

My two cents - for what they're worth.

I had a dear friend who was a recovering alcoholic in all the senses of the word. He went from having to drink when he first woke up in order to stop shaking to being in the hospital missing a good portion of his stomach lining and in danger of his liver giving out. The doctors told him if he ever took another drink, he'd probably drink himself to death. He had no choice but to quit all the way.

AA worked for him. When he was killed in a horrible car accident (no alcohol involved), he was on his 7th year of sobriety and managed to do that by using the AA program. It worked so well for him that he was able to continue his love of playing blues music (mostly done in bars) without falling off the wagon.

One example.

Example #2.

At one point in my life, I had a drinking problem. It was, in fact, rather serious - to the point that I would wake up at home on Sunday mornings and, after checking to see that I was alone, think "well, I must have driven myself home again". I spent a great deal of my week just living to get to the bar on the weekends.

AA would NOT have worked for me. The alcohol wasn't my problem - the loneliness was. I went to the bar for company. I drank for companionship with the other drinkers around me.

Yes, I needed to stop drinking. I was participating in way too many risky behaviors because of the alcohol. But I didn't need a 12-step program. I needed company that didn't get me drunk in the process. I solved my problem by getting a job in a bar, waiting tables. I had the company, made a little money, and it was too late by the time I got off work to do any drinking of my own. It was a tailor-made solution for ME and it worked.

AA is not for everyone. For those who must rely on having someone else to keep them accountable, it works well. For those who MUST stop drinking or DIE, it's a viable option. But for those of us whose drinking problems were based on other problems, like me and Solaris, it's really not often the best idea.

[Jared H.]

I'm glad, at least, that you *do* see that a great many people are being helped every day through AA. No, it's not for everyone. In fact, it wouldn't have been for my father, because he was quite literally, vehemently anti-god. And yet it doesn't stop my occasional daydream of the might-have-been had he tried it out. "It" being AA, quite simply. Sure, any number of alternatives might have helped as well: shamanism, acupuncture, holistic herbal treatments, shock therapy, even clinical psychology. But in the 60s and 70s, AA was the accepted route, tried and true. I personally know more people for whom it has worked than for whom it has not, and I know many folks of both categories.

It seems to be a recurring theme: We get some negative bit of information and suddenly we're ready to throw out the whole apple along with the bruised spot. A rabid bigot latches onto the bible to fuel his persecution of gays and we blanketly condemn Christianity. Forget the people for whom Christianity daily enriches their life. A man uses a gun to take the life of his family and himself and suddenly the hue and cry is "ban all firearms." Never mind the fact that the VAST majority of firearms are never and will never be used thusly.

How many times have you had to defend Wiccanism over some Ozzie Wannabe killing a cat and carving a pentacle in a nearby table?

We all seem to be looking for simple answers to complex questions. And sometimes we decide that we're looking for COMPLEX answers when the simple ones do quite nicely. The best part is, it's rarely *if ever* an either/or situation.

Life's a crapshoot. And you know what? To me, that's the best damn thing about it. I envy the guy who believes in god, who actually *owns* that faith. I envy him because I've tried and I can't make that leap. It's basically impossible without epihany, and I have zero access to such a mechanism. Likewise, I envy the guy who disposes of his back pain with a few well placed needles, the guy who beats cancer through a series of herbal treatments and positive thinking *and* the guy who can walk into an AA meeting and change his life.

And I don't want to take away their bibles, needles, liverwort or 12-steps. Let's get rid of the Fred Phelps the ephebophile priests and the predatory thirteen-steppers instead.


Bravo, Dread. Bravo.

[rick]

Basically, Rick, I'm not kicking AA---what I'm kicking is that "everybody knows" assumption that happens far too often in the general population... an assumption that's based on parroting of AA's approach, with little real knowledge of the complexities involved in alcohol abuse.

It's like saying that every person suffering depression should take a drug, and further, one and ONLY one kind of drug---and that if you seek a different method of help, you're "refusing to admit you're depressed" and "you really don't want help."

Do you see where I'm going with this?


First off, yeah I was taking what I saw as you being hostile more from the articles then from anything you were writing.

Sorry about that.

Look I perfectly understand that AA is not for everyone. When I was going through my own issues with substance abuse I went to them and to NA for about two years and really didn’t get anything out of it other than the most white knuckle kind of sobriety.

However, I saw all sorts of people work the steps and actually improve their lives, so I also know that the program can work.

I do agree with you that there is too much of a general perception among the people that AA is the ONLY way to get sober, and I agree that this is a serious mistake on their part. But keep in mind that up until about 25 years ago, AA was the only real abuse program out there, so it is easy for people to get the idea locked into their heads.

[Dreadstar]

Solaris, earlier you also mentioned that you probably thought most people's alcoholism was based on deeper, psychological or emotional issues.

While that is certainly true in most cases please do not think that people cannot become *physically* addicted to alcohol just as they can to other drugs. I know personally of at least three people whose drinking problems really were physical as much as mental. One man was perfectly happy -- lovely home life, loving wife, good kid, good job but he really *could not* touch alcohol again. It would be like setting him off on crack cocaine.

Another young woman I knew was so physically addicted to alcohol she actually experienced horrible withdrawl symptoms. She described it as having squirrels in her stomach clawing to get their way out.

The third person I knew was another woman who also had a nice life, had a good upbringing, no big problems that she was trying to drink her way out of.

So yes, there are some people who have 'addictive personalities' (for lack of a better term), there is something about the way their brain chemistry is wired up that causes them to become physically addicted to alcohol the same way certain drugs cause a physical addiction or (as studies have shown) nicotine in cigarettes causes a physical addiction.


A comedian (that I can't name for some reason, I can see his face) once defined alcoholism perfectly:

"What's an alcoholic? O.K., look at this bottle of liquor right there. You might drink a few drinks, maybe even go for a half a bottle, then you put the lid back on it and put it in the cabinet.

Y'see, I don't understand that last bit. Makes absolutely no sense to me."

[Dreadstar]

First off, yeah I was taking what I saw as you being hostile more from the articles then from anything you were writing.

Sorry about that.

Yeah, count me in on this apology as well. I think I took the tone of the hate-site and transfered it to your exposition, Solaris.

[Solaris]

And as an outsider, without a horse in the race, I can't help but wonder how much of this is confirmation bias.

You're an outlier, Chris. Your personality, tastes and opinions run tangent to society, especially when it comes to following rules and systems devised and imposed by others. There's nothing right or wrong with that, it's just how you're built; it's what makes you you. So AA was bound to rub you the wrong way. Coming across someone else's negative opinion (and where did that come from, it would probably be prudent to ask) and going, "A-ha, I thought there was something fishy about that whole setup, and I was right" strikes me as a philosophically dangerous leap to make.

Food for thought.


I'm not saying that. Please read my later posts, and you'll see.

I think maybe some of the misunderstanding on my position is coming in because of how I worded the thread title. I was posing the discussion by stating the two extremes of how people see AA, and then "Other" as being "anywhere in between." I wasn't espousing either extreme. As to the links I put in, I put them there *because* they run counter to the general perception in the populace of AA, and I wanted them out there for people to comment on.

Analogy:

If I started a thread on Fred Phelps, and put some quote of his in the title of the thread... would you assume I espouse his beliefs? Or would you take it as a read that I'm bringing an extreme position to people's attention, to give them a chance to discuss it? (And in Phelps's case, bang the hell out of it! ;))

I think several of you are reading an emotional investment, on my part, in what A. Orange said---and I think maybe it's because of how I laid things out, when I opened this thread. Hopefully, I've cleared that up, now. :) I see that it wasn't coming across as "I want objective discussion on this," but rather... well, what you said, Michael.


EDITED TO ADD: The *reason* I posted those links, rather than posting links with it that support AA, is because of the "general acceptance" thing I'm talking about. By posting those, it kicked the general assumptions in the pants, and generated some good, intelligent discussion---which was my goal. :D

[Solaris]

First off, yeah I was taking what I saw as you being hostile more from the articles then from anything you were writing.

Sorry about that.

Look I perfectly understand that AA is not for everyone. When I was going through my own issues with substance abuse I went to them and to NA for about two years and really didn’t get anything out of it other than the most white knuckle kind of sobriety.

However, I saw all sorts of people work the steps and actually improve their lives, so I also know that the program can work.

I do agree with you that there is too much of a general perception among the people that AA is the ONLY way to get sober, and I agree that this is a serious mistake on their part. But keep in mind that up until about 25 years ago, AA was the only real abuse program out there, so it is easy for people to get the idea locked into their heads.

Thanks, rick (and hopefully, my last post pinpointed the source of the misunderstanding I'd generated, and corrected it).

And yes, I understand and agree that, for a long time, it was the "only game in town," so naturally people not only accepted it as such, but also absorbed the tenets as "the right way" or even "the only real way."

My point in all this is, now that there's so much more known about alcohol-related problems and abuse, and the wide variety of needs such people may have in finding the best way to help themselves, continuing the "earlier days" acceptance in our culture is a bad thing, because it stigmatizes many, and downplays other means of help.

Which is the point of this whole thread---get people *thinking* about the old-time cultural acceptances, and to begin questioning them, and to update their information. :)

[Michael P]

A comedian (that I can't name for some reason, I can see his face) once defined alcoholism perfectly:

"What's an alcoholic? O.K., look at this bottle of liquor right there. You might drink a few drinks, maybe even go for a half a bottle, then you put the lid back on it and put it in the cabinet.

Y'see, I don't understand that last bit. Makes absolutely no sense to me."

Aaron Sorkin had Leo say something similar in an episode of The West Wing:

"I'm an alcoholic, I don't have one drink. I don't understand people who have one drink. I don't understand people who leave half a glass of wine on the table. I don't understand people who say they've had enough. How do you have enough of feeling like this? How can you not want to feel like this longer? My brain works differently."

[JeffreyWKramer]

Jeffrey, the wiki article mentioned that, in areas where that unofficial "13th step" problem was occuring, an advisement was made that AA look to creating "female only" groups, to help alleviate the problem.

Do you know if that's been done, and if it's helped?

Many locations do have women's-only AA and NA groups, and yes, it definitely helps. In the Des Moines, there are several such groups, and they are very popular with women in recovery.

Some places also have men-only groups, and groups for gays.

[Alan Lynch]

Aaron Sorkin had Leo say something similar in an episode of The West Wing:

"I'm an alcoholic, I don't have one drink. I don't understand people who have one drink. I don't understand people who leave half a glass of wine on the table. I don't understand people who say they've had enough. How do you have enough of feeling like this? How can you not want to feel like this longer? My brain works differently."
I love that episode. There's a great bit later on - I think it's the same episode - where Leo talks about relapsing. Which I'm sure was written about the same time Sorkin himself had been caught on drugs again. It's impressive, powerful stuff.

And thanks for those who pointed out this 13th Step thing is isolated bollocks. Because the idea of that really angers me.

[beetlebum]

I'm a bit tired at the moment ( I live in California, PST. So it means I haven't had my coffee yet.)

My thoughts on addiction will be posted later. I hope these rumours are not true. If they are, then immediate, remedial steps should be taken to rectify this.

All I know is when I used to volunteer at my parishes Cathedral, I knew a lady going through the RCIA programme who credits AA with helping her get her life back on track. That is all the evidence I need right there. As I said yesterday before launching into a defence of Save Darfur, no organisation is above reproach. Every single human being is fraught with irremediable biases, it's the way we are.

A healthy dose of skepticism is always required and called for, but to let intransigence blind you and to simplify something complicated in order to jar it into a frame work reflecting the way you feel does no good.

I'm not saying you're doing that Solaris. And thank you for your clarification. I just want my words to be taken as cautionary, not accusatory.

As for the people who may doubt that faith can help you recover from addiction, look, I'm a compatabilist. I believe determinism and free will play off of each other. It is almost near impossible to perform any action without taking into account what has come before. Similarly, to believe that every thing will always play off of whatever came before it does not take into account the spontaneity of the universe.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, we all make choices in life, and bear the repercussions of them. The most important thing to remember is that we make those choices, and we are influenced by external factors. But ultimate responsibility lies with ourselves. If it weren't for my faith, I'd probably be doing 'e' and staying out all night, getting pissed out of me fookin' head and being an even (worse) "waster" than I am now.

My faith frowns upon the arbitrary destruction of the body, and for good reason. I credit my spirituality for filling the void inside of me. Granted, faith is not a one size fits all categorical imperative. But I know it's given me a reason to go on, as well as giving me a sense of purpose. Some may be put off by the struggles we believers occasionally endure. But, speaking from personal experience, all I know is it's worked for me, and millions of others out there as well. Some have unfortunately misappropriated the gifts they have been given. But let's not deny the good that has come as a result as well.

[Solaris]

If I might answer.

There are men only, women only, teenager only and all sorts of sub-group only chapters of AA out there, and have been for about 40 years now.

Given that the "13th step" thing was stated as a recent problem... do you think that AA would benefit if they *did* create a more centralized oversight structure, to handle such issues, and/or wide variance of effectiveness in individual chapters? Or do you think it would, by nature, lessen the effect of chapters that *are* at the top of their spectrum, bringing them down to a lower level of effectiveness?

That's not meant to be a leading question---I'm genuinely curious. AA is oddly against the norm for such a large organization, in the apparent level of autonomy granted to individual groups. I can see plusses and minuses on either side of that, so I wonder what you think of it. (Either in creating a centralized oversight structure specific to the "13th step" thing, or in creating a general tighter structure for the whole program---address them as separate issues, please.) :)

[JeffreyWKramer]

Regarding Jeffrey's observations about the role of "support culture" in helping:

For me, I found my "support culture" in family and friends. I was much more comfortable with this, than in seeking it from a group of strangers, no matter how much they *might* have in common with certain aspects of my problem.

I had, and have, a wonderful support culture, that's given me a lot of strength.

And that's great that works for you.

What's important to understand is that for a lot of addicts, they don't have a healthy support system at all. Often time they grew up in alcoholic/drugging/abusive households, and their parents and/or siblings may still be using. Many times, by the time a person realizes they need to stop drinking/using, their peer group consists of nothing but other users/drinkers, and that's not an environment conducive to abstinence, particularly if those buddies don't plan to stop using.

For those people, programs which have a built-in peer support program can be crucial, because humans are social animals, and the urge to be connected to others is a strong one. An addict who doesn't have abstinence-supportive peers is going to keep hanging with people that won't reinforce recovery, and relapse is almost a certainty.

And again, 12-step programs aren't the only option that provides that support. There are others. But it is one that works well for many people.

[Jared H.]

My two cents:

My father is in AA, but didn't start going until after I'd already moved out on my own, so not soon enough to matter to me much. As far as its effectiveness goes with him, I'm not certain. He claims it helps, as does my mother. I'm a bit distrustful of it as a whole(but perhaps that's simply because I never saw my father do much in the "make restitution" phase).

I guess I fall into the middle ground: I know it works for some folks, but also know it isn't for everyone, and I'd prefer that courts would push for more secular treatments for alcoholics(or at least provide it as an option).

[AaronJ]

Any recovery program that requires you to admit you're weak and only some cosmic entity can give you the strength to get over your addiction is bullshit anyway, but the rest of that crap makes AA even more fucking ridiculous.

This is pretty much a perfect summation of how I feel, as well.

[Solaris]

I'm a bit tired at the moment ( I live in California, PST. So it means I haven't had my coffee yet.)

My thoughts on addiction will be posted later. I hope these rumours are not true. If they are, then immediate, remedial steps should be taken to rectify this.

All I know is when I used to volunteer at my parishes Cathedral, I knew a lady going through the RCIA programme who credits AA with helping her get her life back on track. That is all the evidence I need right there. As I said yesterday before launching into a defence of Save Darfur, no organisation is above reproach. Every single human being is fraught with irremediable biases, it's the way we are.

A healthy dose of skepticism is always required and called for, but to let intransigence blind you and to simplify something complicated in order to jar it into a frame work reflecting the way you feel does no good.

I'm not saying you're doing that Solaris. And thank you for your clarification. I just want my words to be taken as cautionary, not accusatory.

As for the people who may doubt that faith can help you recover from addiction, look, I'm a compatabilist. I believe determinism and free will play off of each other. It is almost near impossible to perform any action without taking into account what has come before. Similarly, to believe that every thing will always play off of whatever came before it does not take into account the spontaneity of the universe.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, we all make choices in life, and bear the repercussions of them. The most important thing to remember is that we make those choices, and we are influenced by external factors. But ultimate responsibility lies with ourselves. If it weren't for my faith, I'd probably be doing 'e' and staying out all night, getting pissed out of me fookin' head and being an even (worse) "waster" than I am now.

My faith frowns upon the arbitrary destruction of the body, and for good reason. I credit my spirituality for filling the void inside of me. Granted, faith is not a one size fits all categorical imperative. But I know it's given me a reason to go on, as well as giving me a sense of purpose. Some may be put off by the struggles we believers occasionally endure. But, speaking from personal experience, all I know is it's worked for me, and millions of others out there as well. Some have unfortunately misappropriated the gifts they have been given. But let's not deny the good that has come as a result as well.

Addressing one point in a well-spoken response:

Certainly, for some, a faith-based approach will help... and I mean "faith" in the broad sense, as in "any religious affiliation." I think, in large part, it ties into how strong, if any, a faith-affiliation/affirmation the individual has in his/her own life/lifestyle.

To me, it's not the *type* of motivating factors that matter for the person, it's *finding* the motivating factors for each individual, and reinforcing those factors, that may help.

***

And may I say that I am delighted with the level and depth of discussion we're seeing in this entire thread. This isn't a tack normally discussed in public, regarding alcohol problems (at least from what I've seen), and I hope to see it *become* something that's discussed by the general public. I think if people really look at the issue and question the "everybody knows" stuff, it can help open up more people to seeking a method that will help them best, and also help those who support those persons in giving better support and understanding, when the person chooses a method that is different, or even contrary, to the "everybody knows 'this' is the right way to do it" thing.

In the end, the only thing that matters is when a person who needs help, who has a problem with alcohol, finds a way to get that help, and work on the problem.

I hope that this discussion will end up spreading to other people you all know, and other places you discuss topics... because I think it can open further doors for people. :)

(And it's kind of funny, looking at my sig, but when you think about it, there's "no one, true way" to deal with alcohol problems, any more than there's "no one, true way" in religion. :D)

[Solaris]

And that's great that works for you.

What's important to understand is that for a lot of addicts, they don't have a healthy support system at all. Often time they grew up in alcoholic/drugging/abusive households, and their parents and/or siblings may still be using. Many times, by the time a person realizes they need to stop drinking/using, their peer group consists of nothing but other users/drinkers, and that's not an environment conducive to abstinence, particularly if those buddies don't plan to stop using.

For those people, programs which have a built-in peer support program can be crucial, because humans are social animals, and the urge to be connected to others is a strong one. An addict who doesn't have abstinence-supportive peers is going to keep hanging with people that won't reinforce recovery, and relapse is almost a certainty.

And again, 12-step programs aren't the only option that provides that support. There are others. But it is one that works well for many people.

I couldn't agree more. Lots of people truly NEED the various support systems these programs provide.

I was just pointing out that, for some, there are other support systems that work, too---and one must not, by necessity, go to one of the "assumed" systems to have one, or to have the right one. :) Sometimes people *do* assume that, to have a good support system, one simply *must* join such a group... when in reality, it depends on the individual situation.


EDITED TO ADD: In my case, my support system was very selective. Only certain friends and family members knew I had a problem, and were people I would discuss it with, or look to for support. Given the nature of my own particular emotional issues, I think that choosing my supports carefully was wise.

For instance, my parents were never told I had a problem. It was definitely contraindicated, and would've caused many further problems, and would not have helped in any way---because of the nature of our relationship.

So, even with those who benefit from the sole help of family and/or friends (as opposed to an official type of support group), nothing is 100%. In thinking about it, it would've been more accurate for me to have said that I chose certain individuals from my family and friends who I knew, by the nature of our relationship, would be a good support for me in my endeavors, and avoided those who would not.

And believe me, I am VERY aware of just how lucky I am, to have such family and friends to turn to... and I know that many more people aren't so lucky. However, many of them *become* so lucky, in the contacts, friends, and support they gain in going to an "official" support group.

[beetlebum]

Addressing one point in a well-spoken response:

Certainly, for some, a faith-based approach will help... and I mean "faith" in the broad sense, as in "any religious affiliation." I think, in large part, it ties into how strong, if any, a faith-affiliation/affirmation the individual has in his/her own life/lifestyle.

To me, it's not the *type* of motivating factors that matter for the person, it's *finding* the motivating factors for each individual, and reinforcing those factors, that may help.

***

And may I say that I am delighted with the level and depth of discussion we're seeing in this entire thread. This isn't a tack normally discussed in public, regarding alcohol problems (at least from what I've seen), and I hope to see it *become* something that's discussed by the general public. I think if people really look at the issue and question the "everybody knows" stuff, it can help open up more people to seeking a method that will help them best, and also help those who support those persons in giving better support and understanding, when the person chooses a method that is different, or even contrary, to the "everybody knows 'this' is the right way to do it" thing.

In the end, the only thing that matters is when a person who needs help, who has a problem with alcohol, finds a way to get that help, and work on the problem.

I hope that this discussion will end up spreading to other people you all know, and other places you discuss topics... because I think it can open further doors for people.

(And it's kind of funny, looking at my sig, but when you think about it, there's "no one, true way" to deal with alcohol problems, any more than there's "no one, true way" in religion. )

Thanks. :) And I totally agree, what may work for one may not work for another. So there is some truth in your sig, and yeah I'm always up for a good discussion. It's certainly a heck of a lot better than the really ugly ones we've had here as of late.

And my user location, oh irony, sweet irony, says I'ma buy U a Drank! A-heh. :o Keep in mind I changed it before I discovered this thread

And I just really like T-Pain! :o (;

[Solaris]

Thanks. :) And I totally agree, what may work for one may not work for another. So there is some truth in your sig, and yeah I'm always up for a good discussion. It's certainly a heck of a lot better than the really ugly ones we've had here as of late.

And my user location, oh irony, sweet irony, says I'ma buy U a Drank! A-heh. :o Keep in mind I changed it before I discovered this thread

And I just really like T-Pain! :o (;

Heh, honestly, you didn't have to change your sig! Goodness!

Social drinking is not a problem for me. For others, it can be or is. I'm aware of that. I throughly enjoy social drinking, in the venues that it's meant for (anything from having that glass of wine or fancy dessert drink with the special meal out, or at home, to "parties," etc.). It simply isn't associated with my anger/pain issues, and thus, I very rarely overindulge in such circumstances. So I'm not sensitive at all to "hey let's party!" references, or "come up and see me sometimes, and I'll buy you a drink" jokes.

[beetlebum]

Heh, honestly, you didn't have to change your sig! Goodness!

Social drinking is not a problem for me. For others, it can be or is. I'm aware of that. I throughly enjoy social drinking, in the venues that it's meant for (anything from having that glass of wine or fancy dessert drink with the special meal out, or at home, to "parties," etc.). It simply isn't associated with my anger/pain issues, and thus, I very rarely overindulge in such circumstances. So I'm not sensitive at all to "hey let's party!" references, or "come up and see me sometimes, and I'll buy you a drink" jokes.

I meant I changed my user location from "they can't let me die here" to "buy U a Drank" before I discovered this thread. ;) I was musing on the irony. ;D. But yeah, I totally agree with you on your second point there. Very wise and very well said :)

[Rattlehead]

The only thing I can add is a bit of perspective. Having grown up with an abusive alcoholic, I can only dream of what my life might have been like had he attended AA, not matter WHAT its origins.

Quite possibly might have been the same. My dad has been in and out of rehabs and AA programs his entire life. He himself has no desire to quit drinking, so he never has, and at almost 60 years of age, he'll die with a bottle on hand. All the programs in the world can't help someone who doesn't want to help themself. Talking out problems with other people isn't going to magically give someone the drive and desire to confront their inner demons. My dad is perfectly fine with ignoring them while partaking in a brain soak, and nothing will ever change that.

[Puma]

Quite possibly might have been the same. My dad has been in and out of rehabs and AA programs his entire life. He himself has no desire to quit drinking, so he never has, and at almost 60 years of age, he'll die with a bottle on hand. All the programs in the world can't help someone who doesn't want to help themself. Talking out problems with other people isn't going to magically give someone the drive and desire to confront their inner demons. My dad is perfectly fine with ignoring them while partaking in a brain soak, and nothing will ever change that.

Sounds like a family friend. He got out of his third rehab session yesterday and wants to come up to our house to "get away from the wife" (code for party).

[Rattlehead]

Sounds like a family friend. He got out of his third rehab session yesterday and wants to come up to our house to "get away from the wife" (code for party).

It's a sad reality of life. Some people would much rather spend thier entire lives finding ways to escape their own personal damage, instead of taking a moment to confront it. It's even sadder when someone like my dad knows what kind of monster they become once they hit the bottle, but they just don't care.

Your friend's wife needs to be informed of his intentions. The odds of him ever changing his life grow slimmer by the day. It's true that people do have the capacity to change, but for the most part, people fear change more than anything else in the world.

[rick]

Given that the "13th step" thing was stated as a recent problem... do you think that AA would benefit if they *did* create a more centralized oversight structure, to handle such issues, and/or wide variance of effectiveness in individual chapters? Or do you think it would, by nature, lessen the effect of chapters that *are* at the top of their spectrum, bringing them down to a lower level of effectiveness?

That's not meant to be a leading question---I'm genuinely curious. AA is oddly against the norm for such a large organization, in the apparent level of autonomy granted to individual groups. I can see plusses and minuses on either side of that, so I wonder what you think of it. (Either in creating a centralized oversight structure specific to the "13th step" thing, or in creating a general tighter structure for the whole program---address them as separate issues, please.) :)


I don't think that changing the organizational structure of AA would really help with the people out there who hook up at meetings, although the sub-groups do help cut this sort of thing down.

It would be a good idea though if the various groups out there would empathize harder the recommendation that during the first year of sobriety it is best not to get into any new relationships.

Keep in mind, the so-called 13th Step actually goes against the vast majority of what the program is all about, and there isn't anyone out there who is responsibly following the program, who is going to do it.

You simply can't and still be following the steps properly.

[Dreadstar]

Quite possibly might have been the same. My dad has been in and out of rehabs and AA programs his entire life. He himself has no desire to quit drinking, so he never has, and at almost 60 years of age, he'll die with a bottle on hand. All the programs in the world can't help someone who doesn't want to help themself. Talking out problems with other people isn't going to magically give someone the drive and desire to confront their inner demons. My dad is perfectly fine with ignoring them while partaking in a brain soak, and nothing will ever change that.

Oh no, I COMPLETELY accept that as not only a *possible* out come, but moreover a *likely* outcome. And yet, given a single wish and a 1% chance, I'd have taken that AA chance faster than you can say "Rattlehead." As it was, I never even got within sniffing distance of "maybe".

Dad was out of the hospital between painful liver cancer treatments and decided that 1 month of scared-straight sobriety was far to long and got in a race with his also alcoholic buddy. He tried to pass 4 cars going up a winding hill and chanced to meet head on a tri-axle dump truck coming the other direction carrying 30 ton of coal.

I was, without sarcasm, actually thankful.

So, yeah, I'd have taken that AA longshot in a NY minute.

[Lester C.]

Cults do nothing but soak their members for money and brainwash them. AA saves lives, both figuratively and metaphorically and for what I understand are free and don't take donations other than a buck or two to rent the room the meeting is in. Then again all I know about AA I read in Lawrence Block novels so admit I'm not an authority on the subject.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Given that the "13th step" thing was stated as a recent problem... do you think that AA would benefit if they *did* create a more centralized oversight structure, to handle such issues, and/or wide variance of effectiveness in individual chapters? Or do you think it would, by nature, lessen the effect of chapters that *are* at the top of their spectrum, bringing them down to a lower level of effectiveness?

I don't think centralized oversight would work well with the 12-step model, and any such change would really go against the concept of AA being a peer-based program. As Rick said, I think it would probably be good for the 12-step communities in general to really emphasize that it's good to not get into any new intimate relationships before you've had a year of sobreity. I also think they could do more to warn about the 13th step stuff, but once you start adding a lot of oversight and rules, pretty soon you have to have people who are specially trained or accredited to run meetings, act as sponsors, etc., and this would serve to both reduce the number and availability of meetings/potential sponsors and also alienate those that favor the program because it's so egalitarian and not full of "experts."

Really, the program itself isn't the active ingredient. The active ingredient is the built-in support, and anything that interferes with that would be bad. Ultimately, the quality - or lack thereof - of an AA/NA group is a function of the individuals making up the group, and that's not something that can really be assigned from on high.

[Solaris]

Thank you both, rick and Jeffrey. :)

While the obvious response to some of the issues that relate to the loose, independent structure AA has would be to tighten up and centralize approach/authority, that doesn't mean it's the *best* or even one *correct* approach. Your responses shed more light on certain reasons why "centralization" might do more harm than good.

And Dread, Rattlehead---I'm sorry about your dads. It sucks. (Don't know what else to say.)


EDIT: Am going to have to let the discussion go for now... I'm fighting off the beginnings of a migrane (not related to the thread, btw). Catch you later.

[Lester C.]

I don't see what the big deal is. If AA is what gets you to sober up, save your marriage, job, family, life etc who care is it technically classified as a cult? We're talking about people who black out, kill other people behind the wheel, lose their their health, jobs, etc.

[Corrina]

And again, 12-step programs aren't the only option that provides that support. There are others. But it is one that works well for many people.

I also want to point out that AA is also a treatment program that doesn't cost money.

I'm sure other types of programs work, too, but I doubt a lot of AA members can afford them. Contrast that with AA, where you attend meetings but don't have to pay a fee (though I'm sure donations are accepted) and I can see why it's become so often mentioned. It's easy to find and costs nothing.

I don't think it's a cult, from what I've seen, members can come and go at any time, it's all anonymous, and the only pressure put on is peer pressure inside the meetings. For many alcoholics, it's the only treatment they are going to get and it does really work for a large number.

That it's been abused by people doesn't surprise me one bit. But I don't think it negates the good it's done, especially since it can be the last resort for many.

Solaris, I think many people in AA are really severe addicts. My grandmother was severe--she showed up drunk to my mother's high school graduation. She used to disappear on three-day benders when my mother was growing up, she hid bottles all over the house.

Yet when she was sober, she was great.

She's a person who could not have alcohol. At all. I believe some alcoholics really can't touch the stuff, anymore than a heroin addict can just have 'some' heroin. And i think AA probably works best with these people.

Plus, their groups such as Al-Anon tend to reach a lot of people hurt from dealing with alcoholics and teach them some good coping methods. Again, no cost, either.

Overall, I have a positive impression, though I'm not surprised in the least that there are some bad apples out there, abusing the situation.

ETA: My grandmother quite literally, drank herself to death by choking on her own vomit when throwing up from drinking. She was 56, I think. She never would get treatment.

[Dreadstar]

While the obvious response to some of the issues that relate to the loose, independent structure AA has would be to tighten up and centralize approach/authority, that doesn't mean it's the *best* or even one *correct* approach. Your responses shed more light on certain reasons why "centralization" might do more harm than good.

I worked at the Scioto County Alcoholic Rehabilitation Center in the 70s. While there certainly wasn't any centralization, there was also a good bit of literature that came in from the national level. I wouldn't think it would be too difficult for the national level to recognize the "13th Step" thing and maybe adjust the literature with warnings.

And Dread, Rattlehead---I'm sorry about your dads. It sucks. (Don't know what else to say.)

Nothing to say. Dad's been dead for over 30 years. Do you know that I am right now 10 years older than he was when he died? Sometimes that just seems weird to me.

[Michael P]

Nothing to say. Dad's been dead for over 30 years. Do you know that I am right now 10 years older than he was when he died? Sometimes that just seems weird to me.

I don't think I'd ever like to be very much older than my dad will be when he dies.

Actually, I'd just like my dad to never die. Please get cracking on this, science.

[JeffreyWKramer]

I worked at the Scioto County Alcoholic Rehabilitation Center in the 70s. While there certainly wasn't any centralization, there was also a good bit of literature that came in from the national level. I wouldn't think it would be too difficult for the national level to recognize the "13th Step" thing and maybe adjust the literature with warnings.

I think that would be a great idea, personally. It probably wouldn't remove the problem - you can't control what predators do, and the national-level stuff has stated for decades that the program does not require or even recommend people discontinue medication prescribed by medical professionals for psychiatric or other reasons but you still see some old-timers pushing that stance - but anything to make people more aware of the problem is probably a good thing.

[JeffreyWKramer]

I also want to point out that AA is also a treatment program that doesn't cost money.

True. But the downside of that is also true. There aren't any consistent standards of care, there's no oversight, and there's no accountability among the providers. If someone does something inappropriate but not overtly criminal, the worst they're going to face is disapproval and some cold-shouldering from others at the meeting, and they're free to just go to meetings elsewhere. In contrast, professionals have to follow established ethical and standard-of-care guidelines, and if they do anything which in any way takes advantage of a client, they risk loss of license, legal penalty and going to jail.

I won't say it's a matter of "you get what you pay for" because AA clearly does offer quite a lot to some people, but if all you're doing is going to meetings and that's not working, they don't have any other options to offer and aren't likely to refer you elsewhere, whereas professionals are usually trained in a variety of intervention strategies and can provide access or referral to the full range of treatment options, including residential and detox programs when appropriate.

I'm sure other types of programs work, too, but I doubt a lot of AA members can afford them. Contrast that with AA, where you attend meetings but don't have to pay a fee (though I'm sure donations are accepted) and I can see why it's become so often mentioned. It's easy to find and costs nothing.
Most substance abuse programs do provide service on a sliding fee that is often free for those with minimal or no income, but yeah, it's difficulty to beat "free." Also, there's no intake process, no waiting for openings, and there are lots of meetings, which usually means a person can fit a meeting schedule into his work schedule, etc.

However, even the "free" can have a downside. While not having to pay is obviously important for those who cannot pay, a lot of research data indicates that for folk that can pay at least a nominal fee, having to pay that fee tends to increase their commitment to therapy. If a person has to pay for something, they tend to value that "something" more than if it's just given away for free, and the fact they are spending money tends to make people somewhat more invested in the treatment. That's far from a sure thing, of course - all treatment providers of all sorts can certainly relate plenty of stories of folk that seem content to blow lots of money paying for treatment but never follow the provider's advice, take steps to make things better, etc. - but it can be a factor for some people.

[JeffreyWKramer]

One other thing which leads some people to view 12-step programs as cultlike is that some people in such programs really do develop a life which is based around the program. This is in contrast to developing a full and balanced life - or even one centered around recovery, which can certainly be legitimate during the earlier stages of recovery. It's about being in the program more than gaining from the program.

Some people get so involved in AA, NA and similar programs that they do little or nothing other than attend meetings. All their social life becomes centered around meetings, sponsors and a small circle of fellow recovery folk. They're constantly working the steps, and they never seem to transition back to having a life beyond recovery.

Now, some such folk probably need to do that. Some of them are that fragile, and some don't have the skills to develop support outside meetings. If those people stop going, they'll relapse in short order. Sometimes, though, the emphasis on the program over every other aspect of life - outside interests, family, career, etc. - is obviously unhealthy, often bordering on or crossing the line into obsession, or sometimes becoming a sort of extended codependent relationship structure, in which the ready support of the recovery community enables individuals to never work on developing mature relationships and/or moving forward with their lives.

That's not unique to 12-step programs, of course - some people get wrapped up in doing therapy their whole life, ala Woody Allen - but the same built-in social support which is the strength of such programs can lend toward some insecure individuals never wanting to branch outside the comfort of their programs and back into the risky realm of actually engaging with the rest of life.

As I always tell people, the purpose of a recovery program is to allow you to take responsibility for your life and lead a healthy and balanced life. It isn't meant to be your entire life.

[Dreadstar]

...the national-level stuff has stated for decades that the program does not require or even recommend people discontinue medication prescribed by medical professionals for psychiatric or other reasons but you still see some old-timers pushing that stance...

I never understood that. We had a guy at the half-way house that was doing 500 mg lithium hydrate twice a day. The director took care of dosages, and all was well until he cheeked and sold his meds to his housemates and then went psycho on a manic swing

Yes. You heard that right, 2 other residents bought a couple 500 mg hits of lithium from our resident bipolar.

You *do* know what 500 mg of Lithium does to a "straight" don't you? Yep. Absolutely nothing. Sort of. The director found out who bought the meds by bringing the suspects into the office one by one and declaring that he *knew* that person was the one who was "using" and told him he'd already revoked his court-ordered treatment and would have to go back to serve time behind bars instead. Only 2 of the residents didn't have serious panic-attacks. Bingo.

Our bipolar resident wasn't exactly the sharpest crayon in the box, either. On bed check one night, I smelled something foul coming from his locker. Turns out he was trying to make Jack out of Welch's and yeast and sugar. Dear god, I swear he was probably scooping the scum off the top and drinking what was underneath. THAT, my friends, is THE definition of an alcoholic. Period. I understand he died of complications from alcohol a year or so later.

I'd bet at least half our residents WEREN'T alcoholics, in fact. Just a quick 4 or 6 weeks instead of permanently losing their licenses or serving a year's time behind bars. But some were pretty hard case. We had one guy doing 4 weeks to reinstate his license. 28 days. Another of his in-house buddies got out 4 days before he did. 2 days before he could walk out on his own, his buddy drove past with a couple girls and a cooler full of beer. Can you guess what he chose to do? Too easy, huh?

[JeffreyWKramer]

I never understood that.

I think that stance comes from folk that think meds are just a crutch and mental problems are just an excuse or a sign of weakness, and that if you just have faith and turn things over to your higher power, you'll be fine. It's kind of similar to the religious fundies and the Scientologists that think all you need is to find Jay-zus or Xenu or whatever and you will be freed from your schizophrenia or bipolar disorder or whatever.

Back in the formative days, AA *was* by and large against psychotropic meds. A lot of those folk did regard mental illness as a sign of moral weakness, more or less. But the national level stuff has not taken that stance for a long time now.

[MacQuarrie]

I do agree with you that there is too much of a general perception among the people that AA is the ONLY way to get sober, and I agree that this is a serious mistake on their part. But keep in mind that up until about 25 years ago, AA was the only real abuse program out there, so it is easy for people to get the idea locked into their heads.

The truth is a little more complicated. AA is not the only way to get sober, but some of the principles embedded in the 12 steps are.

Take step one. "We admitted we were powerless over alcohol--that our lives had become unmanageable."

There's no possible way to get sober and stay sober without doing that. Every addict I know (and I'm related to several) is a master of denial. They can handle it, they don't have a problem, they can quit anytime, it doesn't affect their job or relationships, etc. Until you admit that you have a problem, you have a problem.

Leaving aside the religious aspects, AA does hit on a fundamental truth, that one of the best ways, probably the only effective way, to really deal with self-destructive behavior is to realize the extent to which said behavior affects innocent bystanders such as family and friends. The emphasis in AA is to make amends and to help others, get your mind off yourself and see your place in the big picture.

Even the religious aspects can be looked at in a secular way. For example, steps 4-7:

4. Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves.
Again, you can't deal with a problem until you admit you have one. Assessing how much of a problem you have is a good place to begin.

5. Admitted to God, to ourselves and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs.
Admitting things to God is easy, because nobody else has to know. But that makes it easier to admit it to yourself and finally to others.

6. Were entirely ready to have God remove all these defects of character.
The important part here is not the "have God remove these defects"; it's "were entirely ready." It reminds me of the story of Jesus at the fountain where the paralytic is waiting to be healed by the waters, but every time he tries to get in, somebody beats him to it. Jesus asks, "do you want to be healed?" The guy launches into a pity-party about why he can't get healed. Jesus asks again "do you want to be healed?" and gets more of the same. Finally, after the third time, the guy gets it; Jesus isn't asking why he doesn't get in the water and be healed, he's offering healing. The guy finally says yes and is healed.

A lot of people are fully aware of all their failings, but aren't ready to give them up, because their failings give them an excuse for their failures. My dad could blame his bad parenting on his booze so that he didn't have to admit he was a bad parent.

Whether you are looking to God to remove your defects, or are planning to overcome them on your own, you first have to accept the reality that you're going to have to get rid of them.

7. Humbly asked Him to remove our shortcomings.
Again, the important part isn't "asked Him", it's "humbly." Humility is a much-devalued and unappreciated virtue. Humility does not mean weakness. It doesn't mean putting yourself down or letting others put you down. It doesn't mean being a doormat.

It means getting rid of the attitude that you're somehow special and the rules don't apply to you. It means getting over the idea that you are somehow entitled to things that other people have to work for.

Every addict I know is arrogant. Arrogance is fatal.

AA isn't the only way to do it, but it does distill the important parts down pretty well, and most effective treatment programs will hit on the same elements. Particularly the "get over yourself" and "who you trying to kid, kid?" parts.