Just had one of those blasts from the past. About a week ago out of the clear blue sky I ran into an old AA mainstay (he was there when *I* first began going and that 20 years ago!)

But you know the type--about 65 years old now, had seen many hard times, rugged times, and managed with a hiccup or two along the way, to survive the illness. He probably has about 10, maybe 12 years same as me right now without drink.

what I found out tonight was that some of these types ("lifers" if you will) are more insidious than any organized religion, for I thought he and I could just be friends with no strings attached after all this time--but no go.

This was disappointmenting to me, for I look up to him, I really do. But I just cannot do AA--and basically what he told me tonight was: If I wasn't interested in going back to AA, then he had no time, patience, or friendship to offer me.

They don't change. I remember this specter many years ago when I called upon a then-fellow AA member just asking for a little time to talk, or to come over and have coffee and they wouldn't have any of that. "Well... I'd be more than happy to see you at an AA meeting, but..."

It's a shame. Like I said, they're worse than a religious rect--at least a man of God will be your friend; an ear in a time of need. AA'ers often seem so cocooned in their world that they reject outsiders.

Neurotically enough, he seemed a bit disappointed when I explained a little further that I was in no immediate crisis nor had I returned to drinking after all these years. I really wanted to talk to him about depression (he's got that too) and just exchange our experiences with doctors, you know? -but 'soon as he learned I had no interest in returning to AA, his toned changed and the conversation was over, FAST.

Sheesh. What good is that?

I'm too independent a thinker; Alcoholics anonymous relies on the herd instinct (George Vaillant) to work. They can keep their underground culture. It's not for me.

Stits

You know, I feel the same about AA. I quit drinking 3 years ago, went directly to a meeting, everyone told me if I didn't, I would fail. No ifs, ands or buts about it! Well I went for about a month. The people were ok, the prayers were something I just ignored and I think I was the only one who didn't recite the prayer outloud. Now my son is also recovering and he has done extremely well as a AA member, and I am so proud of him, but I have to keep my opinion of AA to myself when he's around because I don't want to say anything against something that helps him so much. But I truly believe that they are a stringent group unforgiving in some ways as you said Stits, and with no good reason they are unexcepting of independent individuals that choose other methods. Weird.

I fully appreciate your careful mindfulness not to down Alcoholics anonymous in your sons' presence Kitty. That is considerate, smart, and most of all perhaps, mature of you.

Some groups are less "stringent" as you put it than others, but there is finally no getting around the fact that you have to be willing accept their Steps to fit in, both socially and to make progress.

When comes to addiction of course we are now finding there is no one size fits all, and there are many other alternative programs, methods, and groups, while AA adheres very protectively to the old "Procustus and his bed" mentality of getting sober.

That don't bother me none, though. We've always known it's been that way.

No--what got to me last night was my longtime acquaintance turning me away right there in a time of need when all I wanted was an ear; some company. It hurt.

Stits

Please do not judge AA by one, two or 10 people. They have saved millions of lives mine included. Yes I still use the occasional recreational drug. 12 years ago I was living in the street. Now I own a house. I had been to so many hospitals, detoxes, Phoenix House, etc that I've lost count. The only thing I did different was go to AA. It doesn't work for everyone, but it works for a lot of people. Some groups are very stringent (they think they are the AA police), but others are very easy going. It takes an effort to find one that agrees with you. There is, in AA, a wrench for every nut.

I do not preach AA, God, or anything else, I just know where I would be without it.

No doubt about it AA has helped countless of millions, and one certainly cannot make light of that fact.

But, all people with a drinking problem do not fit into the same mold. Some people may get great benefit from AA meetings, following a stringent program, and others might be better sitting under a tree or doing one of a hundred other different things.

In some ways AA reminds me of the Jehovah Witnesses, it's either their way or the highway. A very good friend of mine had very serious marital problems and joined the Witnesses thinking it might help her. She met many nice and seemingly caring people, but was a very shy person and could not bring herself to knock on people's doors to spread the word as they require. As a result she left the Witnesses, thought however that the supportive friends that she met there would still be her friends through her difficult problems. To make a long story short they ostracised the woman completely.

No disrespect to your friend Stits, but what type of characters do people have that would shun their friends in need just because they no longer belong to some organization? I say not a good one.

In some ways AA reminds me of the Jehovah Witnesses, it's either their way or the highway.

Whoever told you it is AA's way or the highway does not know what they are talking about. If someone in AA tells you that, just ask him what page of their text it sates that on. That will be the end of that conversation. What it says (more or less) is that 1) These are suggestions 2) We (AA) do not have a monopoly on any of this stuff. If someone knows a better way, good for them. Actually, what the text says if you think you can do better off by yourself, or that you think you now know enough to drink moderatly, we suggest you try just that. Good luck.

Steve, I had eight years' experience with AA. Did it all: Had my sponsors, homegroup, steps, was opening and making coffee, chaired countless dozens of meetings.

It never stopped nor helped me to stay sober. My worst years as an alcoholic was during that time.

Inexplicably, it was after I quite going for the past 12 years that I began to recover--and by recover I mean, to genuinely lose the obsession with controlling alcohol.

"They have saved millions of lives..."

We can't possibly know that, you know. It's catchy but because of AA's anonymity aspect, very, very few longitudinal studies have been done.

"The only thing I did different was go to AA."

The only thing I did different was to finally cease the meetings.


Well, Blondie gets my point.

See Steve it's not the helpful wrenches that disturb me; it's all the preponderance of insularistic, more narrowminded, and cliquish oldtimers that turned me off.


True, but many's the time I've seen some gruff, impatient member tell the newcomer publicly (in meeting) that "the door swings both ways"; that if you don't like it, feel free to leave.

And I have seen people do just that in response to a bad first meeting experience. So no, nowhere in any of the text does it say "our way or the highway," but there are many ways to give the (brand) newcomer that impression.

Stits

I am glad you found something that works for you. May we all be as lucky. I know I am.

i think AA works for some, but not all. i mean once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic, says who?

and how depressing is that. i beleive people can change.

but also understand they do wonderful things for many folks, but do think it is herd mentality and think it is that way for lots of things. okay by me, just not for me.

my two cents.

You are so right I went to AA and it is like there is no hope in the world.Your right it does help and even save peoples life.It was so depressing after I would want to like get a drink lol.It is not for me as well, I do not need to be told how I should live my life.Peace

I've attended several types of "-A" groups - Alanon, Narcanon, Incest Survivors anonymous, Overeaters anonymous and 12 step groups are just not for me.

What I experienced was that the same core group seemed to dominate every meeting. Some of these people seemed to be "stuck". Since you're not allowed to "cross-talk", I found myself sitting on my hands and forcing myself to keep my mouth shut. I realize that we all heal/recover at our own rate but some of these people really didn't seem to want to move forward. Finally, I just decided I would find other means to cope with the after-affects of some issues in my life.

Some people need to feel that a higher power controls life, so AA and religion work better for these people. These people need to be preached to.

Rational beings understand that it is one's self that ultimately controls thyself.


--------------------------
"The female of the species is more deadlier than the male." - Rudyard Kipling

Most members of AA and other 12 step recovery programs have only one real goal in mind. That is to quit their addiction and prevent relapse. The rest of the conversation about the best way to accomplish that goal is best left to the individual.
It works for some and not for others. I'm not surprised to read that many posters on this particular discussion board are not supportive of the principles of AA. When someone attends a meeting, they should be encouraged to "take what they need and leave the rest at the door."
If you can quit your addiction without this kind of support, that's great. However, many people cannot and that's why the 12 step programs have grown and prospered successfully.

I've heard some interesting facts about AA. This is what their own analysis shows:

for addicts trying to quit on their own, the success rate is 5%.

For addicts trying to quit through AA, the success rate is 5%.

I have no problems with addiction (knock on wood), but this seems like an interesting set of numbers to me. I won't be going into AA if it ever happens to me.

i did have trouble with alcohol as young man. tried AA and did not work well, tried one on one in medical study at university and worked a little better, fell off now and then.

read a study of english folks,, success rates of programs like AA and a good talking too. the report said success rate was about the same. Seriously, just saying act like an adult, like a man in my case, and know what, that worked for me. it was time to be a adult

have a drink now and then, drink 99.9999% less than years ago. and older i get less i feel like it. been like that for almost 20 years.

whatever works.


but must admit, nothing like a 20-25 year old single malt scotch. had one of those a few weeks back and that is living..

Although AA believes in a medical cause for alcoholism, their treatment program is a nonmedical one that includes both social and emotional elements. At the core of AA's treatment program lie the 12 steps. These steps were originally adapted from a Christian organization, the Oxford Group. The group emphasized changing one's life and removing sin by passing through five stages known as the five procedures. These stages involved giving in to God, listening to God's direction, checking for guidance, achieving restitution, and sharing (Kurtz, 1988).

So...Gorothegimp where is my thought process flawed?



--------------------------
"The female of the species is more deadlier than the male." - Rudyard Kipling

You have intelligent insights into recovery, and obviously know alot about it.

However, that the higher power concept is not equivalent to a God of religion does not mean that A.A. is not a religion. I have been to hundreds of meetings, and despite what they adamently claim, it is essentially a religious cult. I am not saying it is bad, just what it is.

To be able to claim it is not a religion, you must first understand what religion is. A.A. claims that the essence of religion is belief in a divine being, but this is incorrect.

Although AA believes in a medical cause for alcoholism, their treatment program is a nonmedical one that includes both social and emotional elements. At the core of AA's treatment program lie the 12 steps. These steps were originally adapted from a Christian organization, the Oxford Group. The group emphasized changing one's life and removing sin by passing through five stages known as the five procedures. These stages involved giving in to God, listening to God's direction, checking for guidance, achieving restitution, and sharing (Kurtz, 1988).

I have always found this intriging as well. According to A.A. alcoholism is a medical condition which only God can cure. I think A.A. is great for some, but I have also seen some emotionally abusive things occurr in those rooms.

Folks sometimes/often attend AA (or similar type recovery oriented meetings) in the hopes of garnering friendship from others who share the same demons. An AA members "friend", as an alcoholic, is/was alcohol, and it is only natural to replace it with a human being.

While this beneficial can side effect can occur -- even often in some cases -- it is not the GOAL of AA meetings. The goal is SOBRIETY.

MartinD stated it ever so succinctly: Take what you need (the tools to stay dry of alcohol), and leave the rest at the door.

Having said that, one needs to realize what is available at these meetings. If a friendship is develops within the realm of the AA environment, great. But some (most) AA bound folks are there because they have hit rock bottom, and are looking for sobriety. Introducing friendships/relationships which extend beyond the scope of the AA philosophy, and expecting them to be available outside of the AA meeting format is just an added extra, and can introduce risk to the sober member if the relationship is with a folk who is on the edge as to whether to drink or not. (I realize the OP stated he/she hadn't had a drink for a good number of years -- but the AA member probably has seen many come and go, stay dry without meetings, and live life (as they state) in a "dry drunken" state. In other words, no booze, but the underlying issues as to why they drank in the first place haven't been addressed through the program and are thus (in *their* eyes) at risk for relapse.) And in A.A., the saying is -- in order to keep it (sobriety), you need to give it away (help others willing to give the program a go, if you will.)

This ideology may sit well with some, and sound like complete nonsense to others. Understandable (the nonsense part) -- I do agree.

Another misconception about AA is that it is a religious sect. And while the words "Power greater than ourselves" does appear in their steps, it doesn't, AT ALL, mean that it is some form of deity. It could be just the meeting itself, or a commitment to attend meetings on a regular basis (thus altering your daily routing to the local watering hole, or local liquor store), and so on ...

This chap, of whom the OP referred to and became annoyed with, obviously found solace and success in the AA format of recovery. And since there is no current SUCCESSFUL medical treatment for alcohol addiction, AND he/she is interested in saving his life, he/she is very protective of the relationships he/she develops which fall outside of AA.

I'm not in disagreement with what the OP may have felt from the interaction (or lack thereof) of this AA member (I may have very well felt the same way as the OP!), but the OP may have been expecting more from the AA member that what he/she could have realistically given. Remember, without sobriety for this individual, he/she may have no life (or be dead) at the moment. I'd be protective of myself in that situation, too.

My $0.02 ...

-xax

P.S. I'm neither advocating nor dissuading the attendance of AA meetings via this post. It's only an informational blurb, and I welcome rebuttals, flames, or whatever comes my way because of this post -- which can evoke strong emotions to folks who oppose AA (or any 12-step program).

Another misconception about AA is that it is a religious sect. And while the words "Power greater than ourselves" does appear in their steps, it doesn't, AT ALL, mean that it is some form of deity. It could be just the meeting itself, or a commitment to attend meetings on a regular basis (thus altering your daily routing to the local watering hole, or local liquor store), and so on ...

This chap, of whom the OP referred to and became annoyed with, obviously found solace and success in the AA format of recovery. And since there is no current SUCCESSFUL medical treatment for alcohol addiction, AND he/she is interested in saving his life, he/she is very protective of the relationships he/she develops which fall outside of AA.

[/quote]

The view of it being a religious sect is not a misconception. (Even courts have declared it was a religion--not that the courts ar the authority on the subject, but their view is an informed one).

What makes you think that lack of a diety precludes A.A. from being a religious sect (other than people in A.A. saying so)? Religion does not require a deity.

However, the steps indicate that "God" plays a central role, and meetings end by saying the lords prayer!

Further, the word "God" is frequently used in the big book, and the steps make clear that one must believe in some form of a God, as "God" is mentioned in the actually steps.

Even if "God" was redacted from the steps, it would still be religion.

Also, for my curiosity, if hypothetically, an absolute medical cure was discovered (such that you could completely eliminate alcoholism) do you think A.A. would espouse such a cure. It was always my impression, despite the language in the big book, that even a cure was found, A.A. would not except it as valid, and continue to assist that there way was the only way.

"Also, for my curiosity, if hypothetically, an absolute medical cure was discovered (such that you could completely eliminate alcoholism) do you think A.A. would espouse such a cure. It was always my impression, despite the language in the big book, that even a cure was found, A.A. would not except it as valid, and continue to assist that there way was the only way."

***********************************************************


I'm going to stay away from all the God stuff, as I'm not sure what I believe, but to satisfy you "curiosity", the text actually says (I don't have a book in front of me - so this is not word for word), that some day a medical cure may be found, but until then................

Doesn't sound like they are calling anything or the possibility of anything invalid. Maybe there is more between the lines that I am not seeing. I'm just the next clown trying to stay alive.

You are quite right. I "religiously" take a walk everyday to maintain my health. However, I by no means subscribe to the fact that there is any such deity that I look to for inspirtation to take my daily walks.

But, therefore, by all means, put me in the category of the "Religion of Walkers". :-)

-xax

P.S. A emotionally charged thread, as if I knew what I was getting into in the first place. It's all in good fun for purposes of spirited discussion, as I see it.

I was actually thinking of the same portion of the text you are refering, (something like: "science may someday find a cure, but it has yet to do so" and in my meetings everybody says that phrase in unison at the into of the meeting), and it is why I stated "despite the language in the big book." So, I am wondering, despite the excert we have in mind, if they would espouse, or accept such a cure?

It is my impression from the tone of the passage, that the writer does not believe science will ever find such cure (and it is still somewhat an alien concept; that an addiction can be cured. Why do you think that is? My first guess would be pretty contoversial, so I won't say it, besides I am now rambling.)

I would really like to know your first guess. Mine is,that some do not want a cure to be found,but why? There is alot of information out there on brain function,parts of the brain affected etc. Compared to all they do not know about the brain there is a lot known about addiction.

I was guessing that there can never be a scientific cure to a disease when the desease is manifested only by voluntary behaviors. So, there can't be a cure, because there is no real illiness in the since of a physical ailment that itself gives rise to symptoms, i.e. the illiness is only manifested by its symptoms, which are in turn a result of freely made choices and behavior. Its a lot like your view.

I don't necessarily believe the above, which is another reason I didn't say it. Further, it is not exactly an idea that hasn't been said before a milion times before, so it really doesn't add to the discussion (as everyone has heard thid point of view).

Well my first thought on the passage is that the Author (B Wilson, with some help from his friends) had no faith in medicine because medicine had utterly failed them until that point. They been in and out of hospitals, sanitariums (as they were called in the 1930's when it was written) and nothing proved helpful until they put this "thing" - AA together. Who wouldn't be a sceptic of medicine. In fact, the top Drs in their fields at the time wrote the introduction to the book basically saying with all our scientific knowledge and learning, we have seen nothing help these people as much as the altruistic (Bill, and Dr Silkworth in this case showed off a lot with the big words) movement growing amongst them (AA). Anyway it seems to work for a bunch of people, so who knows. Hydros don't work for everybody but they sure work for a lot of people. Some people swear by fentanyl. What ever floats your boat is pretty much Ok by me.

Now if we could only get a government elected that agreed with me, what a wonderful world it would be.

I wanted to comment on the "once an addict, always an addict." post.

About 28 years ago my husband was an alcoholic. When he was in High School he took a bottle of hard liquor to school with him everyday. He drank all day everyday for 5 years or so.

When he went into college he quit drinking. Just didn't have the time because of all the studying and a lot of his stress was gone once he moved to another state to go to school.

Now he drinks when he goes out with clients, or if we go to a company party and that's it. He averages around 15-20 drinks a year, depending on how many times he has to entertain a client. I drink about 3-4 times a year. We never have alcohol in our house because neither of us would drink it. A few years ago we bought a six pack of beer to drink when we were cooking out. Six months later we threw out the last 2 beers that were still in there.

So you can be an alcoholic at one point in your life but still have an occasional drink and not be an alcoholic again. And that's not something that most of the recovery groups believe. They believe that you can never have even one drink again or you'll "fall off the wagon".

Why so many people are closed minded fails me. Once an addict always an addict is total bull hockey.

I also don't believe that he is forever a recovering alcoholic. Sorry, he 'recovered" many years ago and alcohol is no problem now. It was a problem then because of things going on in his life. Once those things disappeared when he went to college then he was fine. But I think he'd be totally P.O.'d if someone told him that he is forever a recovering alcoholic because 28 years ago he drank a lot. *shakes head*. That's why I wouldn't do the 12 step program or anything like it. If I needed help, I'd get it through a doctor and fix it that way, but I couldn't go to meetings with so many stringent Rules.

And it's just my .02. I'm sure others here have had good experiences with AA or NA. I'm just saying that I feel some of their basic philosophies are messed up.

Your husband is either a very extraordinary individual or never really suffered from the disease of alcholism. The relapse rate of substance abusers who are involved in recovery programs is over 90% within one year. That rate for those not in programs is much higher. So you can imagine the odds against someone once addicted to a substance being able to return to that substance and use it "resposibly."
The reasons why addiction has become generally defined as a disease have their root in the way our brains function. It is a complicated explanation but has been validated time and again. Stories like your husband's remind me of the cases of people who smoke two packs of cigarettes/day and live to be 100.
Believing "once an addict always an addict" is taking the safest path to a full life.

I just wanted to toss my opinion in this thread!
In every angle of life, you have fanatical folks about something or the other. Same thing with AA/NA/OA,etc..
There are some people who feel and prefer the group of together they get from attending those type meetings. They yearn for the, "Thanks goodness I'm not as bad as that guy" syndrome. Also, they can relate to alot of the experiences of others, and that is always a positive for people who are addicted. Once a person gets past the initial horrors of w/d, the next step for most if to spread their story. At these meetings they have a somewhat captive audience, that is all ears to hear of the war stories of whomever has the mic at the moment. It is sort of like the "slowing down to see a wreck" theory.
I have attended many, many AA/NA meetings, and still do go occasionally.
To the OP: I do not know your "friend", but it is my opinion that he is one of those old timers who for some reason believes that he hangs around you, eventually, both of you will be drunk in an alley. He is trying, in maybe not the most compassionate way, to maintain his sobriety at all costs. Many old timers I have talked to have this mantra. They honestly think if they have any association with folks that have "left" AA, they the whole bunch of them will end up in some drunken, drug laden orgy!
Again, just my penny's worth!!

Your husband is either a very extraordinary individual or never really suffered from the disease of alcholism. The relapse rate of substance abusers who are involved in recovery programs is over 90% within one year. That rate for those not in programs is much higher. So you can imagine the odds against someone once addicted to a substance being able to return to that substance and use it "resposibly."
The reasons why addiction has become generally defined as a disease have their root in the way our brains function. It is a complicated explanation but has been validated time and again. Stories like your husband's remind me of the cases of people who smoke two packs of cigarettes/day and live to be 100.
Believing "once an addict always an addict" is taking the safest path to a full life. [

The above is a typical example of A.A's monopoly on truth, and of their positions which are automatically insulated from any contrary evidence that could threaten yto disprove a central tenant of their faith.

For example, the belief in "once an addict, always an addict." All the A.A. member needs to beleive when confronted with the anomoly (sp) of the person with a history of addiction who occasionally has a drink without relapsing into full blown addiction. Either, 1), he must not have actually been an addict, or when that fails the member can always use the "eventually it will catch up with him, and he will re-delvelope his problem in the future.

This solution also works when confronted by the addict who "beat his addiction" and has remained clean for years without even attending one A.A. meeting: "such a person was not a real addict." These, examples similar to the classic logical fallaCY (SP) refered to as "begging the question"--when confronted with the fact that they have known other addicts who, not only continue to use, but also resolved their addiction without the help of A.A. This is like many theories in A.A. which take on a tautalogical air, and which everyone prsent excepts without question, or even reflecting.

But one can hardly blame a man for holding erroneous beliefs, especially when such beifs were hoisted on him at his most desperate time--his rock bottom, his concession to defeat and moral surrender (which A.A. requires). No wonder A.A. followers are so faithful.

On a side note, what evidence indicates that the relapse rate people not in A.A. is higher than %90. I don't beleive this is a valid figure. There are very few people in treatment who refrain from A.A., as A.A is the mainstay of treatment. Thus, how could a reasearcher ever find a significant sample size of addicts in recovery who do not attend A.A.