Regarding AA, and NA, isnt it ironic that.....?

[methMADMAN]

The only people who rail against such programs are those who are so close minded they look at it from the outside, refuse to even give it a try and see what it's about, and then decide that it's a "cult" or something like that and denounce it? Funny that so many people denounce something they have absolutely no real knowlege about.....And a bit sad.

[Jiggles]

It seems as if a lot of the denouncers of AA or NA are past members who have seen some of the workings of it and decided it was too close to a cult for comfort.. If SWIY has a personal success story with AA or NA and knows people who are naysayers of these programs or if SWIYs story is something along those lines, then by all means please share it and don't just make a broad generalization about everyone who has negative claims of AA/NA etc.

[JDreaming]

Usually the only time I would dare to criticize a whole culture of people is if it's a group of people I have known and lived with. AA/NA is no exception. SWIM was a recovery group person at one point years ago, and now he is a psychedelic explorer, and a happy one.

I am prepared to criticize both the flaws of psychoactives and the flaws of prohibitionist groups, out of experience with both.... and I already know I'm not the only person like that on this forum. Look around at all the cautious assessments and mixed views on this board of risky chemicals like Methamphetamine, which can be either enjoyable or highly perilous. All kinds of people share information here.

[dogzz]

It would be wrong to denounce AA or NA, because they do work for, and saved many a person from their addiction. Do they work for everyone? no, not at all. Just as each person is different from another, each addict has to search out and find what works "FOR THEM"

Swim's personal opinion is AA, and NA like was already stated, works for some....but swim sees it as many times giving up one addiction for another. The whole idea is to get ones life back.....and how back to normal is someone who spends all their free time at meetings, and not at home with family?. If it is the only way a person can get clean...then swim's all for it. Swim suggests everyone wanting to quit using check a few meetings out at least. Just as swim feels each person should check into ALL available means of support. There are a ton of online support groups and sites for each and every addiction......search them out....search out every possible source and find what works for YOU. When it comes to addiction recovery, it would be flat wrong to denounce any method. The only thing that matters is each and every addict finds his/her path to recovery. whatever that path is.

[bcubed]

SWIM can't denounce something that gives benefit to so many, but he has issues with unquestioning obedience to the program.

First off, the whole religious (sorry, spiritual) aspect of the program is such that, as God is perfect, and thus a "divinely inspired" program is perfect, too, anyone who fails (90%) must have done something wrong. This is just part of a dogmatic approach that reminds me of commuinsm and certain religious sects: because the cause is so good, quantifying success or even taking a critical look at it is not only unneccesary, but an indication of a lack of committment to the cause.

Also, there's the whole silencing of Bill W's promotion of pharmalogical treatment of alcoholics (such as his LSD and Niacin promotion.) He never recounted either of those beliefs--he was bullied by his own organization into distancing AA from them and discontiuing his use of LSD. AA is able to work with alcoholics, yet stay in the "good graces" of the prohibitionists (both drug and alcohol), and one way it accomplishes this is by downplaying the possibility that certain drug use could be neutral--or even positive--for a recovering alcoholic. If AA had allowed Bill freer reign to promote the use of psychadelics in the treatment of alcoholics, would the status of LSD and iboga be as it is today? Who knows?

Mark G. Judge wrote an interesting book about his own mercrurial relationship with AA during his own recovery (Wasted: Tales of a Gen-X Drunk) in which he talks about these very things.

[methMADMAN]

Originally Posted by bcubed

SWIM can't denounce something that gives benefit to so many, but he has issues with unquestioning obedience to the program.

First off, the whole religious (sorry, spiritual) aspect of the program is such that, as God is perfect, and thus a "divinely inspired" program is perfect, too, anyone who fails (90%) must have done something wrong. This is just part of a dogmatic approach that reminds me of commuinsm and certain religious sects: because the cause is so good, quantifying success or even taking a critical look at it is not only unneccesary, but an indication of a lack of committment to the cause.

Also, there's the whole silencing of Bill W's promotion of pharmalogical treatment of alcoholics (such as his LSD and Niacin promotion.) He never recounted either of those beliefs--he was bullied by his own organization into distancing AA from them and discontiuing his use of LSD. AA is able to work with alcoholics, yet stay in the "good graces" of the prohibitionists (both drug and alcohol), and one way it accomplishes this is by downplaying the possibility that certain drug use could be neutral--or even positive--for a recovering alcoholic. If AA had allowed Bill freer reign to promote the use of psychadelics in the treatment of alcoholics, would the status of LSD and iboga be as it is today? Who knows?

Mark G. Judge wrote an interesting book about his own mercrurial relationship with AA during his own recovery (Wasted: Tales of a Gen-X Drunk) in which he talks about these very things.

Obviously you only have so much experience with this stuff. Firstly, I have never heard anyone deny the experimental stuff Bill W. did, perhaps they do that where you come from, but not around these parts, and second, I honestly have never seen anyone who did this stuff (and I am talking a sincere effort) that failed to stay clean and sober. And I also know that it's made crystal clear by just about everyone in the program that it's all suggestions, nothing more.

[methMADMAN]

Originally Posted by Jiggles

It seems as if a lot of the denouncers of AA or NA are past members who have seen some of the workings of it and decided it was too close to a cult for comfort.. If SWIY has a personal success story with AA or NA and knows people who are naysayers of these programs or if SWIYs story is something along those lines, then by all means please share it and don't just make a broad generalization about everyone who has negative claims of AA/NA etc.

Being a past member means almost nothing. Unfortunately a great number of current members don't even read the books that programs are founded on, and then a good percentage of those people don't do the 12 suggestions, because they are just that, not commandments. The nature of the thing is until you've really done the steps, it's next to impossible to understand it. Hell I've done them and I'll be damned as to explain why it works, but I know it has.

[Jiggles]

Being a past member means almost nothing. Unfortunately a great number of current members don't even read the books that programs are founded on

SWIM feels as if you are taking up quite the defense of AA/NA. Again you attack the credibility of other people who have experienced these programs and not had a good experience, making the broad generalization that the only reason the program didn't work for them was because they lacked proper understanding of it. These programs don't need you to defend them. If they truly were a cure for alcoholism/drug abuse that could work for everyone as long as they "read the books that programs are founded on", there would be much less alcoholics/drug addicts in this world.

and then a good percentage of those people don't do the 12 suggestions, because they are just that, not commandments.

The power of suggestion can be much stronger than any commandments.

The nature of the thing is until you've really done the steps, it's next to impossible to understand it. Hell I've done them and I'll be damned as to explain why it works, but I know it has.

SWIM doesn't like the idea of not knowing why something works but still doing it anyways. For some of SWIM's family members, the 12 steps have constrained their lifestyles in a way that made them seem like different people. People shouldn't have to pick between either a life crippling problem or a (somewhat) similarly life crippling solution. But SWIM guesses for some people it isn't as big of a trade-off to follow the 12 suggestions and those are the people that have success with it. On that note SWIM congratulates you on your success with the steps and is glad they worked for you

[zera]

Originally Posted by methMADMAN

The only people who rail against such programs are those who are so close minded they look at it from the outside, refuse to even give it a try and see what it's about, and then decide that it's a "cult" or something like that and denounce it? Funny that so many people denounce something they have absolutely no real knowlege about.....And a bit sad.

I have never been to a single AA or NA meeting, and in fact cant even think of anyone I know off the top of his head who has been. However I dont need to know anything else except what the statistics say to render judgement. The fact of the matter is that AA shows no improvement over doing absolutely nothing and in fact is much less effective than other treatment therapies, especially ones that encourage moderation rather than abstinence.

I no more need to experience AA first hand to decide that its crap than I would need to try leeches to realize that theyre not medically effective. The research has already been done and told me my answer. In fact its far more likely that someone who has no personal experience (either good or bad) would come to a more rational and less biased conclusion based on the evidence.

And even if AA was great, most of my objection to it comes from the fact that its the states de facto diversionary program for substance abuse related offendors. AAs own literature acknowledges its religious ties and the fact that the government can sentence people to it makes it no more constitutional than the state telling everyone they need to attend church on Sunday morning.

[methMADMAN]

Let me start with why I am uniqulely qualified to talk about this subject:

I am offering an opinion, based on years of first hand experience with drugs, my own addiction. I have extensive experience with, and knowlege of AA, NA, and the medical establishment's best knowlege to date in the field of addictions. I have done extensive personal study and reseach, attended university to obtain certification in this field, and have first hand experience in the field treating alcoholism and addiction.

What you are referring to is one study, that is quite old by now, and that isn't even accurately represented, that many websites use to bebunk the effectiveness of AA. A more recent and more comprehensive study, and unfortunately I do not have a link to the actual full text of the study, though I do have a link to a story about it, concludes that it is actually quite effective.

Funny, that in the begginning of your tirade, you freely admit that you no firsthand knowlege about AA, but then at the end of said tirade, you tell us that:

Originally Posted by zera

AAs own literature acknowledges its religious ties

So which is it, you haven't read their book, or you did and found that information? The answer, of course, is that you didn't read it, and in fact that bit of information is a complete misconception at best, and at worst a heinous lie. AA does not in fact, acknowlege any such religious ties, it does however, freely admit that many of the concepts are the same or very similar to ones found in many of the world's religeons, but it clearly states that it has no affiliation with any religious organiztion whatever. In fact it's absolute lack of religious affiliation is one of the most basic and fundamental tenets. I'll show you, it's known as the 10th tradition of AA:

Originally Posted by The Big Book Of Alcoholics Anonymous

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

Kind of calls your credibility into serious question, don't you think?

It seems that most people on this board feel that they don't need any information about AA to decide it's crap. They feel that they can pass judgement without so much as having giving it a second's worth of thought. My patience for trying to educate people about this, who have zero interest in learning something, but would rather wallow in their absolute ignorance of it, and then continue to say "It's crap, and I don't have to know the first thing about it to say that", is coming to an end. The sad thing is there may be a some people who desparately need the kind of help that AA or NA could provide, that instead might take your uneducated, unfounded, unreasoned, and closed minded opinion on it, and mistake it for the truth.

It also stikes me as ironic, that so many people around this board whine incessantly about how "the man", doesn't understand drugs, and is therefore unreasonably against them. They say that all the government studies are lies, fabrication, and propaganda designed to disguise the truth about the drug situation. Yet when someone presents accurate detailed information that has been independantly researched, that refutes their position, they deny it's validity without so much as a moment's consideration, and without investigating it for themselves. The information doesn't agree with what they want to believe, and they are scared to do the work of investigating, because it might prove them wrong. Yet they expect the government to investigate their interests, and draw the conclusions that are convenient for them. A word is coming to mind, wait, almost got it.....Oh yeah that's it, it was: hypocrite!

[Nagognog2]

I've had first hand experience with people doing AA. They treated me like scum you step on the sidewalk because I admit I enjoy a good ale and don't need to "come to our meeting!" I got the same feeling from cults of Jesus-heads who I wouldn't join even when they babbled at me in tongues - or whatever that trick is. They put me off.

In essence - the one's I have met were the worst enemies to their own cause.

On another note, my brother went to AA. Then he flipped out. Abandoned his children. Stole the car. Sold the house leaving them homeless (I had to take care of them), stole over $100,000 from our dad, and now thinks he's a CIA agent awaiting his assignment while panhandling money in the streets of Washington, D.C. I've seen people flip out from drug use. But people who flip out from cults are much harder to treat and/or deal with.

The End.

[bcubed]

Look, the OP stated that all AA/NA criticism was by those ignorant of the 12-step way. I posted because I have certain criticisms of the program AND have a fair amt. of experience with it. I'm actually a (lukewarm) supporter of it, because I know it DOES help a substantial minority of attendees.

Quote:
Originally Posted by zera
AAs own literature acknowledges its religious ties

So which is it, you haven't read their book, or you did and found that information? The answer, of course, is that you didn't read it, and in fact that bit of information is a complete misconception at best, and at worst a heinous lie. AA does not in fact, acknowlege any such religious ties, it does however, freely admit that many of the concepts are the same or very similar to ones found in many of the world's religeons, but it clearly states that it has no affiliation with any religious organiztion whatever. In fact it's absolute lack of religious affiliation is one of the most basic and fundamental tenets.

Actually, AA was not known as such for years, but was part of the Oxford Group (later Moral Re-Armament). Ebby T. was a Oxford member. At the time the "Big Book" came out, it DELIBERATELY distanced itself from the Oxford group because Buchman made some embarrasing pro-Nazi statements.


Quote:
Originally Posted by The Big Book Of Alcoholics Anonymous
Alcoholics Anonymous has no opinion on outside issues; hence the A.A. name ought never be drawn into public controversy

That is the crux of the complaint I lodged before: when Bill W. became sold on LSD as treatment for alcoholics, it was controversial: some members thought he'd broken his sobriety. The AA brass concluded that LSD was an "outside issue," and that, while Bill could write all the papers he wanted, he couldn't use his position in AA at all. As AA is anonymous, that meant that he had to give his opinion as "Bill W., some guy w/o medical experience that you've probably never herd of." This obviously detracts from the impact of his statments. (Incidentally, didn't Bill's LSD use roughly coincide with the easing of his depression?) AA also did the same thing about his Niacin enthusiasm.

Incidentally, I ran into some shmo from the Grapevine who said Bill didn't break his sobriety because his LSD "was prescribed by a doc." I said 1. LSD was non-scirp at the time Bill tried it, 2. He gave it to Lois, among others...scrip? 3. Implying that MD's have the power to alter the pharmacological effects of a drug means that you've made them your Higher Power!

[methMADMAN]

That hints at why you might have closed the other thread, as it expressed opinions contrary to your own. Well thanks for leaving me with the last word anyway. Your personal bad experience is in no way representative of the program as a whole. I am however sincerely sorry that you had such a bad experience. A lot of people in AA are pretty much crap. I don't deny it for a minute. Addiction to alcohol and or drugs leaves a person fairly much "morally bankrupt". I in no way am trying to say that AA and or NA are for everyone, but those who it does work for, well for them it's very effective, and it is unrivaled in its's success as support groups go. I just want to debunk the absolute lies, half truths and misconceptins that are so prevalent here.

[Harry]

Just curious as you seem to know a great deal about AA/NA, mM. What are the recidivism rates like with these programs? I mean, over time, what % do studies suggest the program actually works for in maintaining sobriety?

[MrG]

Originally Posted by methMADMAN

Let me start w