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

Reputation Comments on this post:

Perfectly good point but out little friend mM is actually somewhat of a Troll. He does not want to hear a balanced argum...

[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!

Reputation Comments on this post:

no need for the cocky attitude, you talk as if you know everything there is to know in the world and dont listen to rati...

[MrG]

Originally Posted by methMADMAN

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

Let me start by pointing out yet another thread you start about NA and AA whereby you spout on and on telling all who make the mistake of reading your posts why you are so amazingly special and how much more you know than *anyone* else and how ignorant are those who reply with so much as a "well hold on a minute".

Even your profile even has the tired old introduction from these groups - "I am Mark, I am an Addict".

Some badge.

Being an addict shouldn't be who you are it should be a problem you have to deal with.

This forum is *not* an NA meeting and, no, you are *not* special and *no* we do not want to have the equivalent of an online group session.

You'd probably hijack the fucker anyway.

However, if you *do* want a balanced discussion please do not continue to abuse those who are trying to put forward counterpoints to your argument. Shouting others down is not going to convince *anyone* that you are right. Providing empirical proof to support your opinion when others question it is the only way you have any chance of succeeding in convincing them that you are making a valid point.

Reputation Comments on this post:

Good solid advice, although I suspect you are wasting your time as he doesn't seem to want to listen to reasoned argumen...

[methMADMAN]

Originally Posted by MrG

Let me start by pointing out yet another thread you start about NA and AA whereby you spout on and on telling all who make the mistake of reading your posts why you are so amazingly special and how much more you know than *anyone* else and how ignorant are those who reply with so much as a "well hold on a minute".

No, I make a thread in order to point out the absolute and undeniable fact, that there are a lot of people here, who, possesing little or no knowlege about AA and NA, thst feel compelled to tell others that these programs are all "bullshit". They portray themselves as if they have special knowlege on the subject, when in most cases their experiences consist of one or two isolated experiences, often, second hand, and not even their own personal experience. And because of this they expect others to accept their experience as being beyond reproach.

Therefore, my background, training, and personal experience become of paramount importance in explaining why I am much more qualifeid to offer an a more educated, and accurate opinion on the subject. My observations and opinions, are drawn from a wealth of experience, and not a few isolated bad experiences which are in no way representative of what these programs are about.

Originally Posted by MrG

Providing empirical proof to support your opinion when others question it....

Did I not, earlier in this very thread link to a story about a study that does just that? Oh yeah that's right I did! Now if that standard is to be applied to me, and if I am to be asked to "provide empirical proof", then why is it ok for people with no qualifications at all to say things like:

Originally Posted by zera

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.

Further when that person provides no link to any study, no facts, no figures, nor for that matter any other evidence whatever, to the table, what exactly makes their opinion, and unsubstantiated claims, credible at all? Especially when that person continues on to make false claims about what AA's book says, when clearly they have no idea what AA's book says? Am I supposed to allow their argument to continue and stand unquestioned?

Originally Posted by MrG

However, if you *do* want a However, if you *do* want a balanced discussion please do not continue to abuse those who are trying to put forward counterpoints to your argument please do not continue to abuse those who are trying to put forward counterpoints to your argument

Since when is carefully offering a well reasoned argument, and pointing out an opposing point of view's obvious and glaring errors, abuse? When one debates someone, it is quite a valid point for one to distinguish what one's qualifications are, it's not an attack, it's reality. If I call another debator's qualifications into question, it's abuse? No it is simply pointing out the realities of the debate, so that the audience may understand what information is likely to be credible and what is likely not.

If a car mechanic, and a suburban houswife, who's only qualification is owning a car , try to have a debate about the virtues of General Motors' newest fuel injection system, how is a "balanced discussion" between the two even possible? Is it your contention that the housewife's opinion is somehow credible just because she has some indirect exposure to the fuel delivery system?

Seems to me yet another one of my threads you are attempting to Hijack because my opinion differs from yours, and by god how can anyone argue against to allmighty and world famous expert on all matters drug related, MrG?

You might as well be saying, "you have no right to argue because I don't like you so shut up!"

Now, let me spend a moment addressing those who actually do want to discuss this, not simply debunk it or argue endlessly about it, for no better reason than because they so desparately need to believe their original point that the will attack the poster before they will adress the actual argument.

Originally Posted by 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?

That information is very hard if not impossible to compile, much less find an accurate study of, due simply to the fact that the program is anonymous, and few studies have been done. The link I provided in an earlier post in this very thread is an article based on the most recent and comprehensive study that has been done. I wish that I had the full text of that study available to me because I have seen it and it makes a very good case for the program's effectiveness. All the same the article does provide some of the most important conclusions of the study.

Originally Posted by bailey

It depends on the group members. There are alot of 'dry drunks' as they call them- basically people who are sober bot not working on themselves. Their issues aren't being worked on and they're basically just resentful of the fact that they can't get fucked up. I know because I am this type of person unfortunately. Anyway, AA or NA are helpful for some but not all, just as it is with everything else in life.

Now this is very true. In order for these programs to be effective, one has to apply the suggestions of the program in their life. Just going to meetings and expecting the thing to work by osmosis, is utterly hopeless, and this is also one of the main reasons why the actual effectiveness of these programs is constantly underestimated.

I've never made the claim that AA and or NA are for everyone. I have only tried to defend them form peoples downright ignorance, and outright lies about them. For many they are very effective, and I'd hate to see someone fooled by an opinion that simply isn't based in reality, but rather just based in someones isolated second hand bad experience with it.

Reputation Comments on this post:

Repeating your points with added rudeness and bolded text does not help us learn or reach an informed concensus. If you ...

[Lunar Loops]

Oh dear god, this is getting VERY tiresome.

Firstly methMADMAN, let SWIS congratulate you on your success and your endeavours to help others.

What worked for you and others DOES NOT necessarily work for all (this is FACT). Implying that those for whom it has not worked are somehow flawed or lazy in that they did not follow the program correctly is demeaning in the extreme. There are other treatments out there for those who require help (ibogaine for example has been shown to be extremely effective in the treament of addictions). You are not the sole holder of the keys to the holy grail of addiction treatment.

I AM NOT calling into question the fact that AA and NA do work for some.

Originally Posted by methMADMAN

Therefore, my background, training, and personal experience become of paramount importance in explaining why I am much more qualifeid to offer an a more educated, and accurate opinion on the subject. My observations and opinions, are drawn from a wealth of experience, and not a few isolated bad experiences which are in no way representative of what these programs are about.

Great, you are qualified and you have experience. Do not think for one minute that you are the only qualified person on this forum or that your knowledge is vastly superior to anyone elses. This approach of yours may not be actually abusive, but at the VERY least it is condescending.

As the old quote says, 'opinions are like arseholes, everyone has one', but more to the point, EVERYONE IS ENTITLED TO ONE. It is what freedom of speech is all about, you can choose not to listen or to listen, argue or not argue, that right is yours (just as it is every one else's right to put their point of view, regardless of their 'experience').

Originally Posted by methMADMAN

If a car mechanic, and a suburban houswife, who's only qualification is owning a car , try to have a debate about the virtues of General Motors' newest fuel injection system, how is a "balanced discussion" between the two even possible? Is it your contention that the housewife's opinion is somehow credible just because she has some indirect exposure to the fuel delivery system?

Actually, yes. As a potential end user she has every right to offer her point of view. Sure the mechanic is qualified to discuss things from a more technical point of view, but that does not make the housewive's view any less valid (and by the way qualifications and years of experience in a field DO NOT necessarily an expert make). She may decide that the fuel injection system is not for her as she sees no real benefit to her use of the car. So from her point of view it is an added expense (and possibly just something else to go wrong) that she does not need. Her view is VALID FOR HER. Balanced does not even come into it as each person has a differnt take on the topic at hand relating to their own individual circumstances.

Originally Posted by methMADMAN

You might as well be saying, "you have no right to argue because I don't like you so shut up!"

YOU ARE saying that you have no right to offer an opinion because I'm better educated and have more experience in the field than you.

Some might say your approach is bordering on the evangelical.

Reputation Comments on this post:

Great points, shame he still can't see what we are all getting at.

[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?

[bailey]

It depends on the group members. There are alot of 'dry drunks' as they call them- basically people who are sober bot not working on themselves. Their issues aren't being worked on and they're basically just resentful of the fact that they can't get fucked up. I know because I am this type of person unfortunately. Anyway, AA or NA are helpful for some but not all, just as it is with everything else in life.

Reputation Comments on this post:

Absolutely right. Life is entirely about how some things suit some people better than others. mM still doesn't like to h...

[MrG]

You know, I can almost see the spittle on mM's monitor!

Look, you keep on missing the point. I have never called into question your experience, knowledge or validity on the subjects of which you speak so stop claiming that I have.

What I have repeatedly taken exception to is the way you spit bile and hatred at those who *have* put forward a counterpoint to your argument.

As for your garage mechanic and the housewife analogy, imagine said housewife has just had a report handed to her about a fault in GM's new fuel injection system and is trying to present it to the mechanic, only the mechanic keeps screaming in her face about how he knows so much more than she does and she should shove said report up her arse as GM's fuel injection systems never have any failings.


But hey, if you don't want to accept this then you keep on mashing those keys.

[methMADMAN]

Originally Posted by MrG

What I have repeatedly taken exception to is the way you spit bile and hatred at those who *have* put forward a (note here the absense of the key word valid) counterpoint to your argument.

OK, please show me exactly where I am guilty of this. Quote me, and explain why, in each instance, it appears that way to you. I think you are reading a lot more into my posts than is actually there. It's true I have a lot of contempt for ignorance being spouted as fact when it's merely an eneducated opinion, generally based on one or two anomalous, and isolated second hand experience, or simply self serving BS that goes against estabished medical science.

I submit that it is you, who is guilty of "spitting bile and hatred", allow me to show the class. All of the following are quotes of yours, responding directly to posts of mine:

Originally Posted by MrG

You know, I can almost see the spittle on mM's monitor!

Originally Posted by MrG

God I hate the whole "high on life" crowd. Have you ever encountered such a bland and banal bunch of limp lettuces?

Originally Posted by MrG

It sounds to me like just another case of a whiny junkie who bleats on about how his addiction is a disease and that allows him indulge in an orgy of group therapy, god bothering and tearful recounts of how daddy didn't hug him enough.
Being addicted to addiction treatment seems to be a growing problem in my opinion.
"Look at me, look at me, I'm special, I demand your attention, your treatment, your hugs!"

Originally Posted by MrG

Good job this forum isn't run by you then isn't it?
Opinion is *all* you are presenting so, by that means, other users are more than entitled to inform you of theirs.
Addiction as a disease, fuck me, that's as bad as the piss-poor excuses fat-yanks give for eating so much crap that they get to jump the queue's at Disneyworld on their motorised fat bastard carts.
Addiction is not a disease, that is simply an excuse for avoiding responsibility for your actions.

In fact, I submit that a couple of those quotes rise to the level of trolling and a case could easily be made that they are personal attacks, which are violations of the AUP here.

Originally Posted by Forum Rules

This will get you banned instantly:

• No trolling. Don't make posts that are inflammatory just to annoy people.

• Personal Attacks. Criticize ideas, not people. Flaming will not be tolerated. This includes any material which is vulgar, defamatory, intentional inaccurate information, harassing, hateful, threatening, invading of others privacy or violates any laws. When writing your messages, please use the same courtesy that you would show when speaking face-to-face with someone. Flames, insults, and personal attacks will not be tolerated. It's fine to disagree strongly with opinions, ideas, and facts, but always with respect for the other person. Great minds do not always think alike, and that's where the fun is!

[methMADMAN]

Originally Posted by shroomonger

Oh dear god, this is getting VERY tiresome.

I agree, it's really a bummer having to constantly fend off people's attacks, and I am not talking about you shoommonger, I don't consider your post an attack but I am going to respond to it.

Originally Posted by shroomonger

What worked for you and others DOES NOT necessarily work for all (this is FACT).

I've always acknowleged that.

Originally Posted by methMADMAN

I've never made the claim that AA and or NA are for everyone.

Originally Posted by shroomonger

Implying that those for whom it has not worked are somehow flawed or lazy in that they did not follow the program correctly is demeaning in the extreme..

I never did that, because in my many years of experience with it, I never saw anyone who actually followed the suggested program who it didn't work for. Here's what I did say:

Originally Posted by methMADMAN

In order for these programs to be effective, one has to apply the suggestions of the program in their life. Just going to meetings and expecting the thing to work by osmosis, is utterly hopeless

Obviously not everyone can do these things and if it came off like I think of them as flawed I sincerely appologize.

Originally Posted by shroomonger

YOU ARE saying that you have no right to offer an opinion because I'm better educated and have more experience in the field than you.

OK, acknowledged, and I do see where it may appear that way, but it was not my intent. It is simply my intent to make it clear what my opinion is based on in contrast to what the counterpoint opinion was based on.

[Lunar Loops]

Originally Posted by methMADMAN

I agree, it's really a bummer having to constantly fend off people's attacks, and I am not talking about you shoommonger, I don't consider your post an attack but I am going to respond to it.

Thank you and it wasn't an attack.

Originally Posted by methMADMAN

I never did that, because in my many years of experience with it, I never saw anyone who actually followed the suggested program who it didn't work for.

Obviously not everyone can do these things and if it came off like I think of them as flawed I sincerely appologize.

Fair enough.

Originally Posted by methMADMAN

OK, acknowledged, and I do see where it may appear that way, but it was not my intent. It is simply my intent to make it clear what my opinion is based on in contrast to what the counterpoint opinion was based on.

Also fair enough, I realise it is difficult putting forward a point of view that many disagree with, but they DO have the right to disagree regardless of their experience or education. Constantly referring to your credentials only serves to get their hackles up further and comments like this certainly don't help (although I realise the mud was flying in all directions):

OK, now you people, with contrary opinions, let me hear your qualifications? *This ought to be hilarious.*

Personally I think that any approach that works for the individual in question is a good approach, so long as it doesn't change them in other (less positive) ways.

[Harry]

Okay mM, I must confess to having much personal info. regarding the program, and that the recidivism question had been a little bit of a bait more so I could see your response to it. You did link (I didn't bother to follow it because I know what studies suggest), but didn't answer the question. This is part of the problem I have with how the program operates. The program pushes for total honestly, yet members forever seem to flounder with the concept of it. 3-5% of people who walk through the doors of AA will make it past the first year sober. Why let us not just say that instead of tipsie toeing around the issue.

I still have friends in AA today mM, whom the program has worked for, good people, some of them have been sober for a very long time, longer then most on this board alive, and I just asked them a question regarding one of your statements, as I had it problem with it

because in my many years of experience with it, I never saw anyone who actually followed the suggested program who it didn't work for.

They actually laughed a bit hard at it. I suppose you could make it cut and dry, "When we say don't drink and go to meetings" Ha, you drank, you didn't follow the program, lol...but wouldn't that be a bit, well, I won't even go there.

Listen mM, I am glad these friends I have are sober today, from by all personal accounts they were complete degens and assholes when they drank, but i also don't care how they got sober. They are pretty nice folks today. Whether it was through alternative methods, or by standing on one foot with their thumb up their ass whistling Dixie. And some studies suggest that for those that realize they have a problem and decide to quit, without AA or any other intervention, that often the numbers are close to the same recidivism rates that AA has for the first year.

Yea, I have given AA a try some years ago, when I was acting like a total arsehole and thought I needed to quit. It didn't take for me...I was one of those 95%'ers, and felt a bit ashamed of it at the time, as I do feel the program promotes shame. That was many years ago, and my life is very together, and I'm a user. Have a SWIM I know who uses opiates regularly. But got the family, the house, the car, the cottage, happier then I ever was etc...and I won't be losing it all cuz I 'picked up a drink'. Just decided enough of the stupid shit, and be moderate with the booze. Has been a charm for me.

I also think that as my friends might have suggested, that you might be a bit in violation of the attraction rather then promotion principle, that the co-founders founded the program on. Why not just tell about your recovery, how good it works for YOU in the recovery section, instead of having it turn into yelling matches in other sections about how much more you know regarding it. For seriously, it ain't all that attractive, and I don't think it promotes too well.

I don't have any personal problem with AA or NA, mM. But I do have a bit of a problem with how you conduct yourself in it's name. Maybe you are doing good in the outside world with it, but from as near as I can tell on this message board, well...I think you are missing the boat.

Reputation Comments on this post:

Spot on Harry, excellent point. Let's see if he can resist replying though!

[methMADMAN]

Originally Posted by Harry

Okay mM, I must confess to having much personal info. regarding the program, and that the recidivism question had been a little bit of a bait more so I could see your response to it. You did link (I didn't bother to follow it because I know what studies suggest), but didn't answer the question.

OK, I thought I was gonna lay off this, and I still intend to, but I really don't think you do know what the study suggests, so I'll quote the article, so you don't even have to follow a link. This should be about it for me and this thread though.

Originally Posted by About.com

Individuals who were encouraged to cut down on their drinking by fellow Alcoholics Anonymous members were three times more likely to be abstinent a year after their first treatment for alcoholism, compared to individuals who received no support, a new study reports.

[Jiggles]

One of the main reasons SWIM so greatly enjoys reading drugs-forum and participating in discussions here is that he finally felt like he found a forum that people actually acted like adults. There is structure here- members generally actively listen and respond accordingly, and discussions most often lead somewhere constructive. Alas, this is one of those rare threads when he feels like he is in the same playground as all the other forums out there. mM, you obviously do have experience behind what you speak about regarding AA/NA, but the way you're talking makes you sound exactly like someone in religion or politics who will go to the end of the earth just to defend what he says. And to what end? When this forum clearly wasn't having what you were saying, why continue using the same method of relaying your information to us? Why not try a different approach?

Starting this senseless playground argument of "my qualifications are better because I'VE been through this and it's worked for ME, therefore if it doesn't work for anyone else they must just be ignorant/stupid" is senseless. SWIM's entire family, including him in the past, does in fact have experience with AA. SWIM's grandfather has been in AA for over 30 years, and yes, he may be sober, but he is one of the biggest assholes SWIM has ever met. And coincidentally, everything you have said to this forum so far is EXACTLY the same thing SWIM's grandfather has said to him in the past in the same manner.

Maybe this thread should just be closed..?
Now excuse SWIM while he steps out for a brew

Reputation Comments on this post:

Well done, exactly what I and many others have been saying to him *over* and *over* again. Without success. LOL.