N.A. or not N.A?: that is the question. For or against 12-step recovery?

[KnowBudz]

When I first attempted recovery, AA was all that was available, so that is what I used. I tried NA later, and found that it really focused on rituals at meetings, something that turns me off. IMO, the steps are the same, so whichever one feels comfortable with is the way to go.

[missparkles]

Originally Posted by KnowBudz

I tried NA later, and found that it really focused on rituals at meetings, something that turns me off.

I'll bet when you get up in the morning you get dressed in a certain way, make coffee/tea in certain way, even down to when you put the TV/radio on.
Those are rituals.
The way you walk to a certain place, you will usually take the same route, even though others might be available. Rituals/routines, plays a big part in everyone's life, they're familiar and make us feel safe and comfortable, but we just don't realise it.
Sparkles.

[AvonBarksdale]

Originally Posted by KnowBudz

When I first attempted recovery, AA was all that was available, so that is what I used. I tried NA later, and found that it really focused on rituals at meetings, something that turns me off. IMO, the steps are the same, so whichever one feels comfortable with is the way to go.

I know what you mean Knowbudz about NA rituals being a bit hard to swallow at times. In California USA NA there is a ritual whereby after the chair at a speaker meeting, the speaker then calls on whomever he/she wants to share...

this has been rather infuriating especially in very new recovery for someone who finds it therapeutic to speak at meetings, but obviously doesn't know the speaker.

In the past it has made me feel isolated and out of the loop with the "cool kids," although in retrospect, my complaint is simply a resentment against structure that I have created and serves no positive purpose.

Looking back If I had lost that resentment I could have focused on the good things that people said up there and not focused on the bitterness in my own head.

While the form or structure of any organization can be hard to take, it is there for a reason and as soon as we let it interfere with the message of the organization we have then lost sight of our purpose there.

[Leftöver Crack]

swim has read all the arguments on here against NA, but let him relate a personal story.

"It has amazed me how many people on here looking to quit opiates and other drugs have never even heard of Narcotics Anonymous"

that, posted by dickon, that was swim. when swim came to this site back in the spring, he was fucking DESPERATE. kicking wasnt the problem, swim had kicked many times. it was not going BACK to opiate use that plagued swim for years. swim kicked at least 5 times, and always went back within a few weeks.

last spring swim kicked and desperate for SOMETHING to work for him, as he'd tried everything he could think of in the past, came to this site to read about ways to live clean and stay clean. swim read THIS thread and discovered NA and thought "well, i have nothing else to lose, might as well check NA out"

long story short, swim is still in NA and now has a sponsor and got his 90 day tag a week ago (had 1 relapse that lasted 1 day).

now, like swim said he read all the arguments on here against NA...swim is a severely skeptical, anti authoritarian, and not just not christian, but anti christian. swim walked into that first meeting and wanted nothing to do with those people...until he began to understand the concept of NA.

that's the beauty of it, when you get down to brass tacks, it's addicts helping addicts stay clean. that's it. sometimes the simplest thing is the most logical thing. and logical things work.

Leftöver Crack added 6 Minutes and 1 Seconds later...

Originally Posted by AvonBarksdale

I know what you mean Knowbudz about NA rituals being a bit hard to swallow at times. In California USA NA there is a ritual whereby after the chair at a speaker meeting, the speaker then calls on whomever he/she wants to share...

that's fucked up. that would lead alot of people to not come back. here in jersey, you speak if you want to speak. if no one wants to speak, the meeting closes. that's really, REALLY bad if it's a newcomer being put on the spot that's most likely already scared being around a bunch of strangers.

[missparkles]

Originally Posted by Leftöver Crack

long story short, swim is still in NA and now has a sponsor and got his 90 day tag a week ago (had 1 relapse that lasted 1 day).



that's the beauty of it, when you get down to brass tacks, it's addicts helping addicts stay clean. that's it. sometimes the simplest thing is the most logical thing. and logical things work.

Firstly, well done for getting to ninety days, that's a tremendous achievement. And yes, NA is about addicts helping other addicts, it may not work for some, but it's kept SWIY clean for 90 days. That's the bottom line.

Personally Sparkles has used meetings, when she's been desperate, and that's worked for her. She's often said no one makes you sign a blood oath that you'll attend meetings forever, and whilst she didn't like some of it, she did find other parts of it useful and helpful. And when Sparkles was in rehab she was always taught to keep an open mind about all means of support. She was also told nothing is ever going to be perfect, even recovery programmes. But you have to learn to take what helps and leave the rest.

To be honest Sparkles does feel that by dismissing everything NA/AA some people might be losing out on some of the things that these programmes are good at. They're very supportive, will always be there if you're in real crisis, and excellent value for money (cost as much as you can afford), and have some very down to earth relapse prevention ideas. Why lose out on a gem cos you can't be bothered to pick through the glass?

Sparkles.

[BrownStreakRailroad]

missparkles,

here, here!!!! it was the same for SWIM. not all of it will help SWIY but SWIY can pick out some golden nuggets from meetings and get support where SWIY may not get any elsewhere!! congrats on 90 days!! have ya got ya keyring????? it does feel good picking it up huh? to know SWIY are making a difference.

Reputation Comments on this post:

Extremely supportive of the OP, as always.

[This is bat country]

Originally Posted by Leftöver Crack

now, like swim said he read all the arguments on here against NA...swim is a severely skeptical, anti authoritarian, and not just not christian, but anti christian. swim walked into that first meeting and wanted nothing to do with those people...until he began to understand the concept of NA.

that's the beauty of it, when you get down to brass tacks, it's addicts helping addicts stay clean. that's it. sometimes the simplest thing is the most logical thing. and logical things work.

SWIY sounds so much like my friend, but SWIY's obviously from a different area. he was even a huge fan of the band your username pays homage to. it's really making me think about SWIM using NA in the future if SWIM ever encounters a problem like this.

If you want help, then you have to realize that you have to change your behavior, because if your behavior weren't fucked up to begin with, then you wouldn't need help.

Reputation Comments on this post:

Good point about changing behaviour, that's the most important thing to keep in mind in recovery.

[methMADMAN]

Yes and I love to hear these things. Use whatever you can because whether you believe addiction is a disease or not, or whether you have stong willpower or not, often it just isn't enough and it is damn hard to change these destructive habits. Any time one wants to change one's life their has to be a certain amount of open mindedness to new things or it will almost invariably become a matter of same old same old once again....

Reputation Comments on this post:

Great point to make about the openmindness and the willing to change in any type of program

[Soletaken]

I don't have a source for this, but in my pharmacology: drugs and society course we were presented with a few papers that showed that traditional 12 step programs have a significantly and often way higher rate of relapse than individuals that attempt to quit using a drug on their own.

If you are motivated and determined to quit, eventually you will succeed and I would recommend doing it on your own, possibly with support/advice from like minded individuals in your life or on this forum. The underlying thesis of 12 step programs is that your addiction is a disease and that you are powerless to stop it, that really isn't conductive to recovery.

[missparkles]

Originally Posted by Soletaken

I don't have a source for this, but in my pharmacology: drugs and society course we were presented with a few papers that showed that traditional 12 step programs have a significantly and often way higher rate of relapse than individuals that attempt to quit using a drug on their own.

If you are motivated and determined to quit, eventually you will succeed and I would recommend doing it on your own, possibly with support/advice from like minded individuals in your life or on this forum. The underlying thesis of 12 step programs is that your addiction is a disease and that you are powerless to stop it, that really isn't conductive to recovery.

Whilst Sparkles agrees that AA/NA is not the way to go for a lot of people, some find it very helpful. There's little conclusive evidence to prove it's any better or worse for someone in recovery to use these programes. After all, any proof of their efectiveness would have to include so may variables.

Is relapse more likely if you use AA/NA as your only recovery tool, or if you use it as one of your assets to maintain your sobriety? Sparkles has used AA/NA, she didn't follow the programme, but used meetings as a means of support. Isolation can be a massive problem in early recovery, so they provide a support network too.

And it's difficult to know if the people who relapse after using AA/NA would have relapsed anyway, regardless of what recovery programmes they used. Sparkles thinks the main benefit of AA/NA, is that unlike a doctor, drug worker...even friends and family, if you've relapsed for the 20th time, you know you're not gonna be demonised for it at AA/NA. And when yoiu feel guilty, ashamed and embarrassed, the last thing you need is to be judged.

Sparkles would advise anyone in recovery to be open to all options, after all, you're talking about taking back control of your life, so don't exclude any help. If you can say no to your drug of choice you should be able to say "no thank you, I don't want to work the programme, I'm here just to listen."


Sparkles.

[methMADMAN]

You know I have posted, over and over, a complex and quite thorough study of the effectiveness of the 12 step model, and what it shows, is that those who get involved and do what is suggested have a much higher rate of success than those who do nothing. Unfortunately so many refuse to look at the comprehensive study.

The study Soletaken refers to is a very rudimentay one, that only takes into account people who went to AA and the percentage that get sober and stay sober. If a court forces someone, or if they go and do not participate or make use of any of the suggestions, of course the failure rate will be high, it is literally a no brainer. So you can look at or quote that little survey and convince yourself that the 12 step recovery model is ineffective if you like, but it doesn't make it true. It seems a lot of folks want an excuse not to make use of or try 12 step programs, so these myths persist, and those who want an excuse make frequent use of it. That's fine with me though, it is your life, the only part that bothers me is when people who truly could be helped get misinformation.

In any case, the idea of 12 step programs looking at it as a disease and something you can't help is another convenient excuse (and a lie), that folks use to bag on the 12 step recovery model.

The truth is that we do not use the disease concept to make an excuse or deny we have any control over our choice to be drinking and drugging. The actual truth of the matter is that we know that we have no control over our alcohol and drug use if we partake in it. We have no ability to control our drinking or drugging once we start and it is a problem for us. We do have choice in the matter of whether we drink or use, anyone has that choice, we do not have the choice of how it negatively effects those of us with actual addictions. It is the concept that the first drink (or drug) put's us in a position where we have no control over how it effects us.

I have never known a true alcoholic or addict that could effectively moderate their drinking and drug use for any length of time at all. Sometimes I see them be able to do it for a short period, but inevitably it becomes a problem for them and they are unable to change the way it effects them. This is why thos of use who are addicted believe in complete abstinence.

If you can control or moderate your drinking or drug use, my hat is off to you, but I also don't think that if this is the case that you would actually be an addict or alcoholic in the first place.

[chillinwill]

Originally Posted by methMADMAN

I have never known a true alcoholic or addict that could effectively moderate their drinking and drug use for any length of time at all. Sometimes I see them be able to do it for a short period, but inevitably it becomes a problem for them and they are unable to change the way it effects them. This is why thos of use who are addicted believe in complete abstinence.

If you can control or moderate your drinking or drug use, my hat is off to you, but I also don't think that if this is the case that you would actually be an addict or alcoholic in the first place.

How long would you consider an ex-addict to continue using not their DOC, but just say psychedelics or marijuana before you were convinced they can in fact moderate some drug use. This is the case for Red Rock for over 18 months now and he would definitely consider himself an ex-heroin addict. Although he is in recovery, he still can use some drugs recreationally (mind you some such as psychedelics and whatnot). He would not be able to go back to heroin though.

Red Rock might falter later in time because of this moderated drug use, he might not. All he knows is he is worried about today and if and when that time arrives, he will worry about that then.

Reputation Comments on this post:

Good point about not predicting the future, you can predict shit, then it happens. Self fullfilling prophecy.

[methMADMAN]

Originally Posted by chillinwill

How long would you consider an ex-addict to continue using not their DOC, but just say psychedelics or marijuana before you were convinced they can in fact moderate some drug use. This is the case for Red Rock for over 18 months now and he would definitely consider himself an ex-heroin addict. Although he is in recovery, he still can use some drugs recreationally (mind you some such as psychedelics and whatnot). He would not be able to go back to heroin though.

Red Rock might falter later in time because of this moderated drug use, he might not. All he knows is he is worried about today and if and when that time arrives, he will worry about that then.

No matter how you slice it, marijuana and psychedelics are not as profoundly detrimental to one's existence as heroin. I know plenty of addicts that stopped heroin or meth, but falling back on pot is still actively practicing an addiction, even if it is less harmful. Smoking pot and doing psychedelics is still and attempt not to face reality and to use drugs as an escape from reality, and some people's idea of "moderation" is really stretching the very definition. I don't know the guy so I have no idea about him personally, but I know people who are not and never were addicts that for one reason or another were physically addicted to opiate drugs. Being physically addicted to a substance like opiates or benzodiazepines is the body's natural reaction to such drugs and does not necessarily include the pathology of addiction for all who become physically dependent.

One thing I see all the time among folks I know is people who used to do hard drugs and now only smoke weed, and from an outsiders perspective, they are not in the gutter because of it, but it is an addiction all the same and most of them end up obsessed with marijuana and unable to cope happily without daily (often constant) use of it. It may be harm reduction but it isn't and never will be "recovery".

[chillinwill]

Originally Posted by methMADMAN

No matter how you slice it, marijuana and psychedelics are not as profoundly detrimental to one's existence as heroin. I know plenty of addicts that stopped heroin or meth, but falling back on pot is still actively practicing an addiction, even if it is less harmful. Smoking pot and doing psychedelics is still and attempt not to face reality and to use drugs as an escape from reality, and some people's idea of "moderation" is really stretching the very definition. I don't know the guy so I have no idea about him personally, but I know people who are not and never were addicts that for one reason or another were physically addicted to opiate drugs. Being physically addicted to a substance like opiates or benzodiazepines is the body's natural reaction to such drugs and does not necessarily include the pathology of addiction for all who become physically dependent.

One thing I see all the time among folks I know is people who used to do hard drugs and now only smoke weed, and from an outsiders perspective, they are not in the gutter because of it, but it is an addiction all the same and most of them end up obsessed with marijuana and unable to cope happily without daily (often constant) use of it. It may be harm reduction but it isn't and never will be "recovery".

So basically from what I am understanding from your post, you believe that anyone that uses a drug is addicted to that drug to some degree and is only using it to escape reality? I might be reading into that wrong, but if that is the case, I am sure many people on this forum can attest differently.

Can I ask one thing? Why do you believe that if an ex-addict uses marijuana, that they are addicted to the substance? What if they use marijuana twice a year and used to use heroin every day for 25 years? I would not call using marijuana twice a year an addiction; yet, in your definition from what I understand, this would be perceived as an addiction.

This is one of the main flaws I find with the NA/AA philosophy and the concept that if one uses a drug or drink one time, that all hell has broken up and they are doomed for failure and have "relapsed" and must start all over.

[methMADMAN]

I'm not going to argue with you, because you will believe what you want anyway and if your only desire is to either to start an argument, or justify destructive behavior to yourself or someone else, then I do not wish to play, and frankly don't really care, because it is your life, but if your interest is better understanding, I will offer this last explanation.

All I know is that one who has issues surrounding excessive use of drugs to the point it is detrimental to to their lives and the lives of their loved ones, is still most likely going to use marijuana or any mood altering chemical to excess. Perhaps it will not be such a seriously significant problem and obviously one who used to be strung out on hard drugs is far better off if they can scale it down to marijuana only. It is harm reduction, and is a good thing, but it is not full "recovery", and should not be construed as such. It is clearly a world better than heroin addiction though.

The fact remains though, that at least in the United States, marijuana is still illegal, and for one to justify the use of it to themselves for reasons other than medicinal, it still puts them one step closer to use of harder illegal drugs, than one who abstains from all known addictive drugs and behaviors. If one can justify braking the law a little, it begs the question, why not one step further, after all heroin or meth or whatever is that much more satisfying?

Most folks may never follow that path to destruction, many may be able to confine their drug use to just pot. I have a friend who that can be said of. All the same though, she is terribly irritable and a complete mess when she is out of weed. Her pot habit is such that she has to sell it illegally to support the habit, and she has like one or two strikes in a three strike sate, so one or two more felony convictions and she could spend life in prison and for what? So she can keep smoking pot? I am not saying that's right because I fully believe pot should be legal, but what should be and reality are two distinctly different things.

Every individual case and situation is different. What I think you fail to realize is that the concept of total abstinence is one that is generally true for us who are AA and or NA members. We have found though each of our personal experience, that anything short of total abstinence does not work for us. Sometimes we in the program do impose that too much on others, but that is individuals, and not what the program itself teaches. One must be true to themselves, and in the best case scenario it is not my place to tell you that any and all use of mind and mood altering chemicals is wrong for you. It is my place to say that they are for me, and that if you are like me than that it may well be the case for you too, but still it is up to you to decide. It is NOT a flaw in the program, but a flaw in folks in the program.

A good example of what I am trying to say is that for many folks use of narcotic painkillers would be something that they might be in great danger if they did it, even under a physicians care. For some folks that can turn out disastrous. Each person has to know what is right for them. For SWIM personally, SWIM's history of drug abuse rarely included such drugs, so now I have chronic pain and can responsibly use these drugs for their intended purpose. My sponsor knows, everyone who knows me well knows, and that is fine for my individual case because I do not exceed recommended use, and feel in no danger of doing so so long as I am honest with myself and those who love me.

All the same though I would not announce that in a large meeting, because some people cannot use such drugs responsibly at all ever, and often such folks would impose what is right for them on to me. They might tell everyone I am a hypocrite and in relapse, but that is their problem, not mine. I would talk to an individual after a meeting who is struggling with the issue to offer my expertise as it relates to my personal experience, but I would try not to judge another's situation, but rather give them what they ask which is my honest feeling, but only if they seek it. Those guys who impose what is true for them on others do the program a grave disservice, but it is individuals, and not the program itself at issue here.

That is my position as best as I can explain it, and to try to explain better would be non-constructive for me. I really am not interested in arguing it further. That is my experience, and nothing you can say can change that. There are folks who don't fit the usual pigeonholes, and more power to them if they don't. I just would caution folks to be sure that their use of pot or anything is legit and responsible, and not let denial creep in. Pot will never be anything near as bad as hard drugs, but that doesn't make it totally harmless either. This is my experience. I am not judging you by saying this, I am just cautioning you that for many folks it is not possible to chase highs and live life to it's fullest at the same time. If this does not apply to you, then it shouldn't bother you that I say this. If it upsets you though, seek within yourself and see if that isn't because their is truth to what I am saying and that your life might indeed be better if you were totally abstinent. To thine own selves be true.

Reputation Comments on this post:

Thank you for explaining this. You make a very compelling arguement that anyone in recovery should pay attention, liste...

[missparkles]

To be honest, Sparkles was addicted to heroin, she's tried rec use of other substances in the past (weed, alcohol and similar less addictive drugs) and sometimes she's managed this for a while, successfully. But as soon as a problem hit that she felt unable to deal with, she went for what she knew helped, her DOC.

She eventually realised that to stay drug free she had to find alternative ways to relax, chill out, elevate her mood. All the time she continued to use anything to achieve this she wasn't changing her beliefs. She still believed a pill/substance would always be there if needed.

Now she's not saying this is the case for everyone, but even now (after 5 years clean) her life is so much better, so she's not prepared to take the risk that maybe she can go back to rec use. She might be wrong in her assumption, and by the time she realises her error, it's already too late.

Sparkles.

Reputation Comments on this post:

love it!

[methMADMAN]

Originally Posted by missparkles

To be honest, Sparkles was addicted to heroin, she's tried rec use of other substances in the past (weed, alcohol and similar less addictive drugs) and sometimes she's managed this for a while, successfully. But as soon as a problem hit that she felt unable to deal with, she went for what she knew helped, her DOC.

She eventually realised that to stay drug free she had to find alternative ways to relax, chill out, elevate her mood. All the time she continued to use anything to achieve this she wasn't changing her beliefs. She still believed a pill/substance would always be there if needed.

Now she's not saying this is the case for everyone, but even now (after 5 years clean) her life is so much better, so she's not prepared to take the risk that maybe she can go back to rec use. She might be wrong in her assumption, and by the time she realises her error, it's already too late.

Sparkles.

I love this point. I am not sure when, given the hell we go though as addicts, why we seem to carry the obsession to hold on to use of drugs! My life is great without them! The payoff would not be worth the risk.

Everyone has to do what they feel is right to them, but I don't know many people at all that can use drugs and be happy once they pass that sort of point of no return.

I'm getting high as we speak from the love of my pound kitty we adopted. It doesn't get better than this!

[scored]

My fox was saying to me the other day, (and he is a chronic addict when it comes to certian substances) that there is no text book for recovery. My fox is soon to celebrate 15 years clean.... he drinks, moderatly, does abit of mdma and cocain from time to time and he considers himself clean, some would disagree but from fox's perspective he is happy (sometimes) joyous and free.

Though a few years ago when he was heavily into fellowship he would not have looked at it this way.

He is eternally grateful for the 10 years of abstinance that gave him the oportunity to deal with some shit and can use the way he wants to nowadays.

But yes still a fuckin Addict with the lingering potential to fuck up big time.... so far so good

Reputation Comments on this post:

good points. i agree that 10 years should be PLENTY of time to process the behavioral dynamic of real addiction... eve...

[chillinwill]

Red Rock is just going to chime in here on being clean. Everybody can have a different definition of what clean means. Red Rock actually dislikes the term clean because it infers that one was dirty when using (using can lead to an addiction that makes an addict have to do things in order to obtain money and drugs) but that doesn't mean they are bad people. Red Rock's definition of being clean means that one no longer has problems (whether it be financial, emotional, social, etc) from their use. A person might be using heroin for example and it causes enormous problems for them. They realize this and stop for a couple of years. After a couple of years, they use heroin or another opiate say once or twice a year and it causes no problems for them. Does this mean they are no longer clean? Drug use and addiction is widely different for many people. Red Rock used to have problems with alcohol before he discovered heroin but he has become a social drinker (once a month or so) and it causes zero problems for him. Now if he were to pick back up his opiate use, it would quickly get out of control.

Basically, everyone is different and can have different opinions on what being "clean" means to them.

[wonky]

SWIM has spent alot of time in NA and knows that they say 'clean' rather than 'sober'. Maybe they began to do this as a way to assert their independence as a separate group from AA; even though the members of AA in the 50's helped them get started, and they were grateful for the help, NA wanted to be apart from AA to help addicts. Also, maybe 'clean' just comes from something simple, such as when you don't pass a urine test it is 'dirty' not 'clean'. SWIM doesn't know, just throwing out observations. SWIMethmadman, SWIM like your post. SWIY is right, the AA text really doesn't mention much about dry drunks, so much of what is heard in the meetings is the opinions of the people, SWIM also liked SWIY'S take on God. SWIM'S idea of God is a little different, but that's what makes the world go 'round.