Maybe I'm misinterpreting your post, martind, but if 90% of those involved in recovery programs relapse every year...how can those not involved in recovery programs have "much higher" rates. It doesn't' get much higher than 90%. Please know that I'm not trying to be rude or anything of the sort...I'm just looking for some clarification since I have a tendency to misinterpret from time to time.

Personally, I think AA and programs of the ilk are like so many other things in life where: If it works for someone, then that's wonderful, and if it doesn't, then that's okay too. Neither one validates or invalidates the other. Substance abusers have many treatment options available to them, at least in this country, and correct me if I'm mistaken, but the people that seem to have success the most often are the ones with the strongest desire to quit...regardless of what method they choose to pursue.

My wife and I have had family members and friends who have benefited tremendously from recovery and support programs like AA and Al-Anon, and some who have conquered their problems without the need for these programs. Certainly a few members here and there might seem a bit cultish, but those people probably exist in virtually every organization where people of differing character convene.

My only objection to the model is the self-defeating way in which "alcoholism is a disease" seems to be thought of as an infallible statement. Say what you want, but perpetuating and reinforcing this belief takes away from people's sense of power over their own action. Furthermore, it gives people an out to excuse their frequent relapses, "I just couldn't help myself...it IS a disease, after all!".

I am well aware of how profoundly prolonged exposure to high levels of alcohol distorts and alters fundamental processes of the brain. Many, many substances of abuse alter the brain in similar or different fashions...do all of these people suffer from diseases as well?

It is difficult to come onto a forum such as this, where we are exposed to literally thousands of people around the world whose diseases include: Crohn's, Cancer, Extreme Gout, severe spinal conditions of all kinds, organ damage, massive chemical imbalances of the brain, etc., etc., etc. and we're supposed to see alcoholism as some kind of "unfortunate disease"??? I'm sorry, but that is going to be a bit difficult for some of us to accept.

I realize that there has been a gene discovered that "predisposes" people to alcoholism...the same thing as been said about the addiction gene. The only problem is see with this is that everyone I have ever known has had an addiction to something, be it benign or dangerous. Addiction seems to be an intrinsic component of the human experience at this point in our evolution, but that doesn't mean that we all are disease ridden...

I know I've gone on quite enough at this point, but I just would like to reiterate that the "alcoholism is a disease" model doesn't promote taking responsibility for your actions...it portrays you as the victim of unfortunate happenstance. The major unfortunate occurence with alcoholics is that they've chosen to become that way at one point or another, just like every substance abuser becomes that way as the result of ill advised choices.

Like I said earlier though, the AA groups have proven to be very effective for a great many people all over the country (I'm not sure what treatment programs are like abroad), and as such should be respected for their successes. Like every other method of obtaining help, it has its positives and negatives, and we as a society should continually be searching for ways to improve our handling and rehabilitating of addicts. Anyway, I am so sorry to go on as usual...here's hoping you all have a wonderful day!

BTW Slepinosa, I agree with you about the more sinister element that exists behing the curtains of many of these groups...thanks for pointing is out so well!

Kai

"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."

That people just accept such statements as the above as true boggles my mind, and explain alot. Actually if I had to put money on it, I would probably bet on the addict in a program. However, I don't believe the success of addicts in programs (which for the most part consists in large part on attending A.A.., N.A., and . . . A.A., and . . . oh yea, also the 12 step program the big book), has ever been demonstrated.
Its interesting that this claim leaves off any specific as to what standard was used to verify if the addict was in a program, or what a program consists of. I mean, if an addict decides to could turkey and ease his tension by masterbating when wd symptoms are at there worst, does that constitute a program. I think whoever did this research on people not in a program (if such research was ever done) must have merely required the addicts to be making some type of attempt, or have a wish, to quit or lower their usage. The findings would not surprise me if this was case.

Aso, the poster states the rate of relapse of non programmers is "much higher" than %90. Vague. And confusing. Why not give an estimate of the actual rate? And how do is it posible for the the rate to be "much" higher than %90 when %100 is the maximum.



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 treating their addiction who do not have some program treatment. A.A is the mainstay of treatment, and "working a program" is often used synonymously to workng the 12 steps-- and A.A. is the undisputed mainstay of of treatment for alcohol and drug abuse. Thus, how could a reasearcher ever find a significant sample size of addicts in recovery who do not have any program or who do not attend A.A. And where does he find such subjects, on the street? Are they credible research subjects? Are they on drugs during the research? what proof do we have that are really drug addicts.alcoholics? After all, if they suceed, then they are not "real addicts."

I think I have made my point, and probably offended many, but that is not my intention. I can feel the flames

How does one even go about gathering statistics for "addicts NOT in programs"?

ditto.

I offer some dijointed ramblings on this subject above if you are interested (or bored).

Sidewalk polls?

Hey, you an addict, and what's the longest time in the last year you been straight?

I'm sure they will give you an logical, straightforward and honest answer.

This happens everytime I screw up and try to quote statistics involving this subject. The 90% figure has been attributed to AA over the years and the other strictly from my own experiences with people searching for recovery.
However, the subjects of addiction as a disease and "an addict for life" are well-settled beliefs held by many in the field. They are closely related. Rather than getting into all of the boring neurological explanations here, I would encourage everyone to do a simple Google search on this subject and maybe that will explain the concepts better than I can.
One thing I've never understood is why someone would have very negative views toward an organization like AA which has helped so many people, doesn't cost the taxpayer anything, doesn't go door to door selling its message and probably has saved hundreds of lives, marriages and family relationships. What is the problem with that?

If AA helps a person, than more power to them. I think it all depends on the person, not the program.

This happens everytime I screw up and try to quote statistics involving this subject. The 90% figure has been attributed to AA over the years and the other strictly from my own experiences with people searching for recovery.
However, the subjects of addiction as a disease and "an addict for life" are well-settled beliefs held by many in the field. They are closely related. Rather than getting into all of the boring neurological explanations here, I would encourage everyone to do a simple Google search on this subject and maybe that will explain the concepts better than I can.
One thing I've never understood is why someone would have very negative views toward an organization like AA which has helped so many people, doesn't cost the taxpayer anything, doesn't go door to door selling its message and probably has saved hundreds of lives, marriages and family relationships. What is the problem with that? [/quote

I've spent years researching studying, and consulting with the most respected doctors in both neurology and addictionology, and in fact am related to one. So, I doubt the google search is going to shed any new light on me. That is, I understand the neurological, psychological, and sociological theories as well as any addictionologist. The problem is that such theories are deeply flawed.

And why does nuerology even matter if A.A. is your program. A.A. ultimately diagnoses you with a "disease" and then, according to the 12 steps not me, one must involve God as the only possible cure.

Do you know what the medical definition of a disease it?

Its mindboggling that of all the M.D.'s out there in this field so few can put two and two together with real world experience, and actual start the process of a real hope for treatment.

With a %90 failure rate, it defies the imagination that people still take A.A. seriously. I find A.A. and the whole recovery phenomenon both fascinating, and also very disturbing (in a harmless way).

In the spirit of this discussion, I hope we can agree to disagree. :-)

But I hear what you are saying: there are overtones (heck -- blatant references, I suppose) of "God as the only possible cure" -- I don't deny that.

But again, restating part of a previous post I made (redundancy not intended), take what you need from the program in order to stay dry, and leave the rest at the door (including God).

If the rest of the A.A. folks say "you need to believe in God and accept him into your life" or somesuch nonsense, just blow it off.

Whatever works for *you* to stay dry is the "correct" way to apply the AA program into *your* life.

"Working" the 12 steps is optional, saying the Lord's Prayer at the end of a meeting is optional -- in fact, everything is optional. (Though many hardcore AA folks will disagree with this approach with ferocity.)

All that is needed is the desire to stop drinking. And however A.A. can assist someone in this, it's there for the taking -- in its entirety, or in piecemeal fashion.

Recall that atheists and agnostics are by no means shunned away from this program. Sure, an atheist or an agnostic may feel a bit like an outsider at such a recovery setting -- but who gives a flying hoot if one has managed sobriety.

I concur with the notion that the 12 step scene can seem (and be) quite "sect" (and very clique) oriented, thus turning off quite a few. It sure ain't for everyone.

This is my interpretation, of course.

From reading your posts, I do respect (and agree) with many of your viewpoints regarding the inconsistencies of the 12 step forum for addiction treatment. Please know this.

With regards,
-xax

AA/NA is harmless. The scary part is the wider organization of addiction specalists and rehab facilities that prey on people when they are at an emotional low.

People don't go to rehab or see an addictions doctor unless they have gotten their asses into some kind of a sling: divorce, criminal charges, loss of job, overdose, etc. I think that most people who are introduced to AA/NA through rehab or a doctor are usuaully so desperate that they will buy into anything. This is the problem, as i see it, and it is also what i find so disgusting and disturbing about the recovery enterprise. Many of the rehabs in my area are funded by the conservative party of Canada and do most of their bussiness with the criminal justice system. Inmates are paroled to rehab as part of their sentences and are forced to accept whatever they are told on penalty of being returned to prison. I went to one of these places many years ago (not as parole) and about three quarters of the people there were on parole or awaiting sentencing. The people who ran the rehab drove a fleet of hummers and as far as i am concerned were the absolute scum of the earth.

I think the principles of NA and AA are great, if you can approach them on your own terms and truely want to get help. It is wrong to coerce people into accepting these principles, which is often the case in addiction medicine today. I personally could care less what the literature says about nuerology and addiction, or how cute the medical community can be with a dictionary. Addiction medicine the biggest scam to grace medicine since the discovery of multiple personality syndrome.

People don't go to rehab or see an addictions doctor unless they have gotten their asses into some kind of a sling: divorce, criminal charges, loss of job, overdose, etc.

Once again, we shouldn't be making blanket statements like this.
Many people seek treatment for addiction "disease" because they know they have a problem, and need help.
I happen to be one of the people that believe addiction is a disease. The gene that predisposes one to addiction, works in the same fashion as any other genetic disease. Someone can be genetically inclined to be a diabetic, but if they live a healthy lifestyle, may never develop the disease. Same with addiction. I also subscribe to the once/always theory, as it relates right back to the above.
If you are a diabetic, you are always a diabetic, you can have remissions, but you are never cured. In addiction, you may have periods of sobriety, but you will always have the disease. As well, some people may have the genetic predisposition for addiction disease, and although they have never taken a drink, they will always have said genetic incline.
I come from a long line of alcoholics/addicts, and even though I knew I was a strong candidate for having the gene, I chose to partake. Now, I spend loads of time trying to teach my children from my mistakes, and hope they will not make the same decision I did, as they too are most likely carrying the same gene, even though it lies dormant now.
Just my opinion of course!!!

like i said in earlier post and it was such a long time ago, i am not even sure if i read it or saw it on the news, but i saw a study of people in England and it was program (not sure if it was AA) and a good talking too. i know this sounds crazy, but the report said the results were about the same. just telling a person, it is time to grow up works at about the same rate as a program. with 90% relapse rate, i guess that makes sense.

As i noted earlier, what ever works is great. my only thing about AA is once alcoholic, always an alcoholic,, that is depressing, i beleive folks can change, but just like loosing weight, it is hard to maintain. how many folks lose weight and gain it back, i would bet it probably close to relaspe rate of alocholics. Change is easy for awhile and the strong survive.

My relative is a veteran. I don't know now but there was always smoking (a lot) going on and a lot of coffee drinking. People were wired.

And that, they'll damned sure do. No, they don't dictate. No, they don't require. But the message is that these 12-Step ("non" God) centered organizations have the corner on getting free of addiction.

They deny their's is the only way, but stick around a bit and you learn if you defy or deny (individual thinking), they say use this against you. They say this very denial is proof positive that you are diseased and in fatal denial. lol!


And I swear to God, that was the rhetoric to come out of this guy's mouth: "It's that anger, resentment, and fear we hold onto," he says; awkward for it had almost no relationship to the convseration at the moment.

He just blurted it out. Anger resentment fear. A 70 year-old mantra of AA.

Silly ME. All I wanted was a friend. I shoulda knew'd better. But this guy was so indoctrinated with recovery-speak that he couldn't even offer that without conditions. It is sad.

And as soon as he said, "well you still haven't surrendered (again in a context having absolutely nothing to do with our flow) - I just lost all hope. He was literally unable to separate "The Program" from anything else in his life. It was all he knew.


In and of itself, yes. Without being unfair or biased, it does possess very cult-like features: First, you're "indoctrinated." Second, you learn many rituals which take place before and after and every meeting. To the outsider it reeks; but to the indoctrinated, all this becomes normal.

Stits

Another quick comment here:
Someone posted in another thread something about W/D's making it ingrained in them to never return to using. That degree of negativity seems to be possessing your "friend" too. For some reason there are folks that truly believe you have to suffer to train your brain not to repeat a horror in your past. I do not subscribe to that thinking, and in fact, believe that you can move past mistakes without having to pay a terrible price to the piper of your shortcomings.
I also notice in some of the oldtimer meetings I have attended, that they say the same thing night after night. It is always the sob story of how horrendous their life had become, but never anything about the good stuff they have going on now.
That has always troubled me. I tend to prefer to live in the positive, and am trying my hardest to forget about the past errors of my ways.

Stits, I never believed in AA or NA for that matter. In my opinion any place that tells people that they are powerless over their addiction is just wrong. Telling someone they are powerless over their addiction(s) is just wrong. IMO that would just make someone think that they cannot over come their addiction(s). I feel that we all have power over any addiction we may have, whether its drinking, drugs or cigarettes. I mean honestly to have a group like AA or NA want people to say they are powerless would in my opinion cause more relapses.

We all have power over our addictions, no matter what kind of addiction.

There is a book out called The Alcoholism and Addiction Cure - How to Heal the Underlying Causes-How to to End Relapse-How to End Suffering, this book was written by Chris Prentiss who is the founder of Passages in California. Passages has the highest success rate in the country for curing addiction. Chris Prentiss says that alcoholism and addiction is not a disease and I believe that too. This book is a 3 step cure to end addictions and it is the approach that Passages uses. Chris Prentiss also says that the addition can be cured in 30 days. He had a son who was a huge heroin user and nothing helped, so Chris Prentiss found a cure, and he states if you or your loved one is not addiction free within 30 days he will give the money back for the book.

Anyway if anyone has any interest in this book at all here is a link to the book and there is video on this link;

https://www.buyaddictioncure.com/spark/index.php?tag=theaddictioncure

OK sorry if I went off topic, but I wanted to give my opinion about AA and their motto about a person being powerless over their addictions, that also goes for NA as well. We are not powerless over addiction(s) and it is not a disease, IMO anyway.

I agree with niki on this---at least it's a start and sometimes, mentally, that's what a person needs the most. Walking through the fear. You can always leave the meeting. For the most part, though, it gives some tools to work with. You can take the ones that work for you and put the rest on the shelf if they don't apply.

I think the biggest reason people go is so they're not alone. When they're alone, they get scared and when they get scared, they drink, whatever.

But I also agree with Ruggie. I don't believe telling anyone that they are powerless over anything. The power is all inside of us--we all come from the same source to begin with. We just forget and have to find it again.

Whatever works, I say, whatever works. Alcohol has taken down more people and families than all the other drugs combined, but it will always be around.

I agree with just about everything Kai said. However, this whole long post isn't entirely in response to you, Kai.

It really comes down to the individual members and community that make up your AA group. For instance, in a small town with conservative values, the experience may be far more like a religion. In a different area or different part of the country, you might meet more liberal or less dogmatic members. It's a community of people, and the environment will always be unpredictable. Either you get some jerks or some pretty cool new friends--I think the OP got a jerk. Doesn't necessarily mean all AA groups are awful.

As for alcoholism being a disease--well, I agree, to call it a disease when the process begins as a voluntary decision is complete nonesense.

But there is a certain stage--both my parents entered into it, esp. my mother--when your brain literally has turned to mush (30+ years scotch all day), and you have to drink alcohol just to stay alive or not hallucinate/become psychotic/have seizures/have heart attacks/strokes. Despite that the alcoholism began as a choice, when certain people are so dependent that they are virtually psychotic or sick and cannot operate normally, it is no longer a choice to consume alcohol but a necessity in order to function. That kind of alcoholism is beyond AA and requires medical treatment.

However, to argue against myself, I have somehow been surrounded by alcoholics and drug addicts my entire life. What a blessing? And most do not fall into this category, and many enjoy the off-the-cuff counseling they receive from AA.

My best friend was recently going to AA and NA, but she wasn't an alcoholic or a drug addict. She was in college, got drunk at a party now and then (who hasn't?), and smoked some weed occasionally. She was literally thrown by public mental health (totally different reason) into AA and NA. AA and NA both had her completely convinced that she was an addict, even though she was sitting there next to meth-heads and winos, and didn't touch a thing. I didn't like this; sometimes people are just lumped into the category of "abuser" too quickly.

As for AA lumping all alcoholics together, their book actually does go into detail about the different kinds of alcoholics, rating them from the absolute worst, who have no ability to function whatsoever, to those who are "friendly and a pleasure to be around." (quote).

Whatever floats your boat, I guess. And whoever is floating your boat has a lot to do with it, too.

Alcoholism does not start as a choice. Drinking starts as a choice. Big difference.

That is incorrect. It is patently, categorically, inexorably (and therefore, unequivocally) incorrect. It is an unqualified and unabashed untruth.

I'm fresh out of adverbs modifiers.

Gore I respect your advancement toward higher education but any other scientist or doctor on here will tell you that it is never all about credentials.. I have enjoyed immensely being mentored by "full-bore" (if you will) neuropsychopharmacologists ("researchers in lab coats") whose numerous degrees have had them on the cutting edge of the development, experimental and synthesis of psychiatric drugs for decades now, often for big-known pharmaceutical companies, which they are of course not at liberty to disclose.

Such that while I value and admire your pursuit of education in the field, there are tons I know either from experience or an intense reading and study in this field over decades.

Twelve-Step groups are traditionally touted as secular, but it's not just a lie; it's a damned lie. And that is the whole point Rewfus was driving at. In AA's Big Book under the chapter We Agnostics, Bill Wilson writes:

"When the perfectly logical assumption is suggested that there is an All Powerful, Guiding, Creative Intelligence, right there our perverse streak comes to the surface." LOL Can you imagine being an atheist and having to listen to this nonsense? To wit, "theism is "perfectly logical"; atheism, "perverse."Give me a break. Or a drink, one. *rolls eyes*

Nor can AA's uniquely Christian heritage be denied. Almost every meeting around the world opens or closes with a Christian prayer, The Lord's Prayer being most common. There are also many places in the original literature including the Big Book where Wilson invokes Jesus Christ and Christian parables.

(Court-ordered attendance is a huge blight on AA and the Constitution alike, as the Tradition stating "we are not affiliated with any outside organizations" is trampled into meaninglessness. This is the WORST kind of external affiliation, an affiliation with a government itself.)

Going a lil' OT here but I'm backing up Rewfus.
This is true when "rational people" are individually-thinking people (12-Step groups rely people who will surrender personal values and beliefs--just about to be "part of" and not alone [the "herd mentality"]).

Rewfus's statement *expecially* describes those who have learned some philosophy and familiarized themselves with the great thinkers of our time; they tend to be less inclined to buy hook line and sinker into myth.

To me, religion itself is mythology passed down from millennia to explain the once-inexplicable. But science is methodically explaining more and more. When Charles Darwin's On The Origin of Species by Natural Selection was published in 1859 it was HUGELY controversial for it flew in the face of everything man had believed about "God's 7-day creation" (I always found it amusing that God--GOD, mind you--thereafter had to "rest" just a bit on seventh. lol)

Of course now over the past century or so, you have these what I call time-wharpers. "No, no see: A 'DAY' in the Bible could have been, why, millions of years! Contrived bunk; a day is a 24-hour day is a 24-hour day and the evidence for this is replete throughout both Testaments of the Bible. Nowhere else is a day meant to be a million years lol I mean c'mon now.

Anyway, the following is often confused and it's easy to see why. Natural selection is fact while evolution remains theory. The former is a known fact because it be can observed, natural selection ("survival of the fittest") can be observed every day. As science knocks down myth after supernatural myth (knowledge is the enemy of faith), the less need of some contrived God (or Trinity of It/Them lol) there becomes.

I won't touch too deeply upon philosophy but it was the famed German philosophers Friedrich Nietzsche and Søren Kierkegaard before him (two 'fathers' of existentialism themselves Goro) who, in explication of the oft-repeated line of Nietzche's "God is dead," explains:

and we have killed him off for it is we created this superbeing overlord to begin with.

Honestly, I can't think of a single reason so many Americans believe in God--certainly not a benevolent one. Most of the populated world remains a one hellish place of starving, suffering people. Sure I know of this never-to-come 'Rapture' and all that, but hey there uh... IN THE MEANWHILE: Countless thousands of children starve to death in their mother's arms; tribes, in the name of ethnic cleansing, hack each other to death, and TO WHAT END? What the hell kind of a "God" would allow this were he not pure sadistic?

It is all some sort of a moral litmus test? "Free will" doesn't fly, for what of the innocents; the righteous; the children too young to understand anything?

Whenever someone says, "I'm PRAYING for you," my immediate answer anymore is a playful "Oh heavens don't do THAT." I smile so they know I'm trying to be funny (in secret, I know it makes no difference one way or the way... )

Stits

Stits, I'm very much in agreement with you, especially the Court ordered AA meetings. My daughter's boyfriend got a DUI 2 years ago. Yeah, drinking and driving is really bad, but it's hard to tell a 19 y.o. that. They think they are never going to die.

So, this boy, who drinks only occasionally on weekends, ends up sitting in AA meetings with hard core people. He chose to spend his time not listening to anything they had to say, looking at them but not hearing them, and simply trying to get through this court ordered hell.

And yeah, he doesn't believe in God. It's a hot topic for many people and not something that most people talk about, but I don't believe in God and neither do my children or most of their friends. To them, God is someone made up many thousands of years ago to explain volcanoes, hurricanes, comets, tidal waves, tornadoes, etc. Science didn't exist to explain what was going on, so they chose to find SOMETHING to explain the natural occurences happening around them.So they made up a God that was punishing them and started doing horrific things to people to appease their God. I used to believe in God, but my God was a good person and I see too much horror everyday to believe that any wonderful God up there would allow this to go on. Plus, hey, the head of the church thousands of years ago of each group of people was given much power, all the food they could eat when others were starving, and any virgins they wanted. What a life huh?

Anyway, all I wanted to say was that sending someone who had one DUI to mandatory AA meetings is ridiculous. They will come out with nothing other than a sense of relief that that [censored] is over with. Make them clean the streets and confetti off the walls and help in soup kitchens. Give them something that really helps the community - not AA.

AA and NA should be for people who are looking for it and need it. My sister was forced into AA by my mother. She faithfully went to all the meetings then went home and had a beer. She became a full blown addict a few years ago and it was only a good therapist that helped her beat her addiction.

And yeah, I get really mad when I watch the Judge shows on tv and they say if you haven't gone to meetings then you aren't truly clean. Bull hockey on that. More people go cold turkey and stay that way than people who go through AA or NA.

And that's all I'll say. If you don't believe in a God and it's forced on you week after week, you will do nothing other than make fun of the meetings. So leave the meetings for the people who truly feel they need them, and don't force them onto people who got a DUI.

When I was a teenager people got stopped for drinking all the time. All that happened was the police either told you to go home and not come back out that night, or you were put in a holding cell until you sobered up and they sent you home. How many people are in jail now for DUI's? I don't think drinking and driving has gotten worse, I just think the way we deal with it has. Put them in a drunk tank for the night and send them home. If they are constantly put in the drunk tank, then perhaps it's time to do something. It's so hard for me to explain to my teenagers that back when I was young a DUI got you 3 points on your license, a $$$ fine and a lecture. Nowadays it's immediately off to jail and a mark on your record that makes it's hard to get a good job in life.

I realize what I just said is controversial and people will go "Oh! Don't you realize how bad it is?" blah blah blah. Yeah, I know. What I'm saying is that there are fewer DUIs on the road nowadays and more people in jail because of it.

We are getting more and more conservative and although I'm slightly on the conservative end of the spectrum, I think we are going overboard. People get put in jail for virtually everything nowadays! It's crazy. No wonder our jails are full and we are building more everyday. We are permanently ruining people's lives over stuff that 20 years or 30 years ago got your nothing more than a $100 fine and a few points on your license. Wouldn't it just be easier to write someone a ticket over something (not just DUI's) and let them go to court and either fight the ticket or pay it? It would relieve the jail situation and would relieve the violence that innocent people are subjected to when they go to jail (by innocent I mean someone who has never gotten into trouble, never seen the inside of a jail, made good grades, etc.). I can only imagine their horror.

Anyway, there you go. My philosophy on God and jail all in one thread!

Stits, you do have a higher power....it's called a thesaurus I am really surprised by some of your rhetoric here; as touting one's self to be "one of the most existential members of AA" is quite presumptious, at least in my esteem.

I also know that you are very intelligent, introspective, and knowledgeable. But to claim to know another man's heart ( or woman's, in this case ;)) or to claim that in some way their respective ideas about spirituality are bogus or some Marxian "opiate" is a lot like claiming to know how a beta fish feels about living in his fish bowl. Yes, his pithy plastic cup with air holes make look miserable and claustrophobic to you, but he may enjoy his enviroment, as it is what he knows. A crude analogy, but what many of us judge to be "charlatan" behavior in AA may indeed be the real McCoy to said member.

I also think you are taking "Free Will" out of context, as I don't think that Bill W or Dr. Bob were referring to children, hurricane victims, or dislocated Muslims on the West Bank when they wrote the original text of Alcoholics Anon. They were speaking to us, the alcoholic, the addict; and more importantly giving hope to the hopeless which regardless of intellectual prowess, can never be duped, as to wish "enlightenment" at the price of misery is foolish, and for those of us who have chosen to live in the concrete world of tangible proof....well, I don't see it working for a lot of people. (I include myself in that category, or at least did at one point). Free Will is the ability to choose, regardless of circumstance, tragedy, lack of rescources ect. I speak from experience- I have had really horrible things happen to me both as a child and an adult, but at some point you put down the gauntlet of said trauma and say "enough" ( I can hear the violinists tuning their instruments in the background ).

You can choose to let apriori experience dictate the rest of your life, or you can shed your skin, allow yourself to be vulnerable and even foolish to your "peers"- but at least for me, I believe in anything that fosters hope in others, and even if my pursuit is fruitless the promise of "restoring me to sanity" is enough of an incentive to listen to the guy who obviously is still high on crack and talking about his "spiritual awakening". You never know where lucidity will come from, and I for one would rather sift through the flotsum in hopes of finding one pearl of wisdom.

That is God to me, that is how whatever deity(s) have worked in my life. Sure, I could chalk it up to "luck", circumstance, ect.-but to believe in those things and to deny the POSSIBILITY of a divine being(s)? How is that logical? I also take exception with the "unwilling court ordered" participant. Regardless of his reluctance, his lack of willingness, or perhaps his own head in the sand approach to life, I have rarely seen a person in said situation where at one point or another I didn't witness them "connecting" or relating to something being said in the meeting. It often surprises them, you can see it on their face. Will they stay sober because of it? Most assuredly not. But a seed is planted, perhaps one that later on will grown into something more substantial. And yes, if you have received two DUI's your [censored] needs to be in a meeting, if for no other reason than to see the guy who just got out of the pen for his fifth, or the mom who accidentally killed her child while driving drunk. Sobering, indeed.

Now, having said all of this, I wholeheartedly agree that psychotherapy in CONJUNCTION with AA is much more effective than AA alone. There are numerous studies that indicate such. But for those who will not seek out therapy, a free community based program may be their only option. Jail or having a paper signed once a week? Hmmm....if someone is complaining about being forced to go to meetings after being exposed to what the legal ramifications of their using behavior could have potentially cost them, they are either extremely niave or extremely stupid ( or both).

I am in no way a big AA guru, I will say however when I had NOTHING, and I do mean literally nothing, they were the only ones there for me, and I owe my life to that organization, and therefore regardless of my own objections to AA and especially to it's dogmatic uber Christian members ( who still helped me regardless of the fact that I was outspoken, insolent, condescending, and got sober in a small town in a red state), I will always be an advocate of it. I don't go to many meetings these days, as I think you might have mentioned, AA has it's place, emotional soberiety has another home. But I still love to help the new comers, as if I can foster faith, anyone can.

And just as an aside (and then I promise that I will stop picking on you ;)) Stits, why are you reading Neitzche, especially after a depressive episode? I love Kirkregard (I don't have time to spell check, as I know it is driving you nuts But "Fear and Trembling", while an excellent and essential read, well, I think it to be more fodder for an overworked mill . Try Seligman's "Learned Optimism" (I can hear you cringe). Really, it's at least worth looking at. Don't mistake me for some Pollyanna who took 10 mg of Zoloft and found God-I'm still looking for what he or she is to me. But I would rather get lost in the search for peace than stuck in the mire of intellectual torture. Take or leave what you please, but for God's sake PUT DOWN THE NEITZCHE and come back to him later. He's dead. He's not going anywhere, anyways .

Take care,
J

Me too. Was born into a Baptist family. In the early eighties, read the Bible cover-to-cover, "New King James" version. Bought brand-new. Got into ol' Falwell (rest his soul). In my early years, I just sucked it right up and y'know? after a couple years, became quite knowlegeable of the Bible. Could quote a good few passages by precise chapter and verse.

Then came the 'Net and intellectually, I "got out" (as in "you should get out sometimes"). While what once kept me "among the faithful" was that preacher with the nine-inch finger promising to me a neverending suffering in an eternal hell, through reading I began to be slowly be liberated from this horrendous tradition and--once freed of that rapt FEAR, was literally able to exercise far more personal intellectual honesty and take in other views.


Oh I hear you Lynx.

I hear you. **hugs**

I haven't lost sight of your primary frustration.


lol! That's great! Had never thought of that - you go girl (or guy)!


In one post, even. Nice rant Lynx. Thank you for contributing so much to my topic.

Stits

Stits, I don't know what you're trying to say. I got a little lost with all the words. Just keep it simple for me, OK? LOL

I understand (I think) what you are trying to say, but there is a vast difference between God, religion and spirituality. Religion is man made--a societal code to live by with the assumption that there is something greater than us.


All I know is that when I was in nursing school and watched them performing open heart surgery or was in the anatomy lab investigating the cadavers, it was evident to me (and I'm not Einstein, but I'm no dummy, either) that all of this is no accident. The language of DNA and the coding is so vast, yet precise, that to think that the universe (as we know it) is random evolution is absurd.

Words put limitations on thoughts. My concept of God, a Supreme Oneness, Prime Creator is beyond anything I can imagine, yet I know it's there. Energy can only be transformed and we are all part of that energy. We are in it. We do happen to be in a dimension of dichotomy; therefore we can only know light because there is dark; joy because there is sadness. If there were a God that was a master puppeteer moving us around like pawns on a chessboard, there would be no point in even being or existing. We would only be playthings for some bizarre intelligence with a sick sense of humor.

I do not believe we are powerless, as the power of the entire universe runs through us and everything else. The one thing that separates man from animals is that man can create. If you walk through a forest, you can spot a robin's nest or a foxes den, because those species are programmed genetically to make their homes that way.

But if you go through a human's home, you will find that no two are like. We possess the power of creation. I don't believe in heaven or hell, but I don't believe that this is all there is, either. When we "die", we just leave the body in this dimension, but we still exist on some level. There are too many people (myself included) that have been dead and been brought back (didn't want to--it's painful here) that know the experience of "death" is not leaving at all.

We're just on a temporary journey on earth. As for free will; absolutely. We have the freedom to choose what we believe---that is what gives us dominion over the animals.

AND, before I leave, I asked my anatomy professor why alcoholism is considered a 'disease'. His answer was this: It is not a 'disease' until there is a chemical change brought on by tolerance of the drug (alcohol). Again, genetically speaking, some people cannot drink at all--it is as if they are 'allergic' to it.

Will belief in a higher power help? It sure can't hurt, as long as one knows that they are responsible for their own decisions and willing to accept the consequences. 'Cause even if you don't believe in a God, that's still the way it is. If you play, you gotta pay.

agree and i wince when all the prayers start marching -- thanks, jehza.

I have to say, that maybe in your personal experience, that AA and it's teaching didn't work for you or your family, is probably because they were in denial about their illness...that is part of the disease. If AA or NA should only be for those looking for it, then I guess we should give up on those that have not come to realize they are sick, and after committing their DUI's,or other crimes, just give up on them, and hope for the best?

Obviously, AA will not help everyone or be for everyone, and it is true that one needs to want it... BUT.. MAYBE, that person that is sent to these meetings MIGHT just find something in them, that they might have that moment of clarity, that in time, maybe a defining moment that motivates them to find another way of living.

I have seen several people, that had no intention of making a change, that was only saved by intervention...although they went kicking and screaming, many have found a new way to live, and had it not been for someone or something else, other then themselves, they would be dead.

I think we should do all that we can as a society to help those that don't want help. It would be one thing if these people sat at home and drank, passed out and didn't hurt anyone but themselves, but it's another when they go out and kill and hurt innocent people.
Especially those offenders that have DUI after DUI on their record...I would much rather have their azz sitting in a chair at a meeting, rather then picking up trash...I honestly doubt picking up pop bottles will help them in anyway...and although there is no guarentee that an AA meeting will...ya just never know. I wish someone would have had the drunk driver that killed my best friend and her family go to a meeting...who knows...maybe the ending would be different.

i have to correct my prior post as i realize it was STITS, that shares my philosophy -- and since it is not a popular one -- don't care to make trouble for anyone as this is usually a charged subject.

STITS,

read the book "THE GOD DELUSION?" not nietzche -- perhaps, more bill maher... wide middlegrounrd there, wouldn't ya say?

Statistically, yes, AA is not all that effacious. The ratio, if you will, or success stories goes up generally if the person is 1)willing and 2) has a sponsor with whom they feel a connection with. But trying it on your own....A dangerous endeavour, IME. Too many listless nights, hands cramping from "white knuckling" it, and you can pretty much guarentee a relapse. I think most of us use because we are lonely and lost. Drugs fill a void for a time, before they become our compass, our east and west. They also stop time, as it is far easier to worry about where you are going to get your next fix than to worry about bills, car payments, faimily, mowing the yard, investment portfolios ect. You have one focus, for the true addict, most of the other "stuff" of life falls to the wayside. I think that is why soberiety is so intolerable to some of us: accountability is hard, hard work.

The AA "blowhards" are miserable people, at least in my experience, as anyone with such finite restrictions upon whom they will or will not associate with have lost sight of the reason they joined AA in the first place. If you are carrying around a 20 year chip and have no time for another who is still using, well, then you have become a fossil, and should probably be listening instead of talking. But don't let these people muddy the waters- AA used to be quite different, and some people really are unreasonably dogmatic about it.

Stits, I am worried about you. Both the Bible and Origin of Species where written by man, and I believe both inspired by God. Which makes them fallible. I believe in evolution, I'm not sure if I believe that Jonah was spit out by a whale....I think the Bible is like most religious manifestos, parables meant to teach, not to be taken literally. Yes, there is much suffering in this world, but I really agree with kersah, without darkness we would not know light. Instead of butting heads with you, I just wish you peace and companionship. You are far too unique to be without either.

Just some final food for thought....

“I prefer credulity to skepticism and cynicism for there is more promise in almost anything than in nothing at all”
-Ralph B. Perry

“Life is not an easy matter... You cannot live through it without falling into frustration and cynicism unless you have before you a great idea which raises you above personal misery, above weakness, above all kinds of perfidy and baseness.”
- Leon Trotsky

“Cynic, n: a blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.”
-Ambrose Bierce quotes

“What is a cynic? A man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.”
-Oscar Wilde quotes
***I almost didn't include this one, as I don't get the impression that "some" of the posters on this thread don't indeed, get the value of something. But I do love Oscar Wilde .

Bill Maher? He is about a sensible as Rush Limbaugh at times. His main goal is to be provocative, not empathic or even rational at times. Too slanted and disenchanted. And way too ego driven. He also reminds me of the old SNL skits featuring Dana Carvey as John McGlaughlin, constantly yelling "wrong" at his unwitting guests and being partisian to a fault.

don't think darwin would agree on his inspiration for "origin of species". kind of simplistic to compare those two books in that way, but just my opinion, jehza.

no harm meant -- but you know that.