The Irrationality of Alcoholics Anonymous

benbradley said:

And that's where appropriately-tried-and-sentenced alcohol offendors belong, not in some church basement or clubhouse being told "don't drink and go to meetings."

Click to expand...

Glad I at least get to respectfully disagree with both sides. I fully support offenders getting options for recovery rather than jail, including AA and preferably other options as well.

You were certainly lucky in that (though it's not clear what entity was sending you to AA), lucky you didn't have to take the system to court to stop it.

Click to expand...

I never had to go to AA thankfully. I just had to continue therapy and complete a psychological evaluation which confirmed my suspicion I was on the autism spectrum.

.

Fruitbat said:

Well said. As with many things, the philosophy is only part of it. Then you have to deal with the actual people, lol.

Having recently lost my father to cirrhosis, I just know I'd so much rather if he had hung out at the meetings rather than the bars.

Click to expand...

I'm so sorry for your loss.

That's actually why I put in the part about the diets. It's about dying or not dying for some people, that can't be denied. But for a lot of people, that death sentence is blanket-issued. Got a DUI? Well, eventually you'll die of cirrhosis, probably in a jail cell.

These fears are not a substitute for logical questions like, what do I want from my life? How are alcohol/drugs helping me, or not helping me? Is it possible that I can moderate? What do I need? What do I want?

I think there is a different way of thinking, besides fearing one's own death--which doesn't seem to work with young people, and doesn't seem to matter to depressed people.

It seems to "take what it takes," to borrow an AA phrase. But I don't mean take what it takes to get a person to AA. I mean it takes what it takes to quit.

I attended AA, though my addictions were to various drugs. I was in and out for about a decade, once getting over two years together.

My last stint there, I decided to stop attending with a year under my belt. People were worried about me, people issued dire warnings, and some people basically wrote me off as doomed to relapse again.

I didn’t. This time when I left, it wasn’t to use. I didn’t want to use, but by the same token, I didn’t really want to talk about it anymore. I just needed to get on with my life. Being an introvert, the meetings were a chore for me, though I’d continued to attend because I was told if I didn’t, I was at risk of relapsing.

Then it occurred to me that I had some semblance of control over my own thoughts and actions. If I didn’t want to use, I wouldn’t. This is contrary to the AA position—constant vigilance is required against a cunning, baffling and powerful addiction.

But I knew that I didn’t want to use. I still know it. It doesn’t even take willpower. It’s simply fact now. It’s even been tested, at the dentist’s office, with a molar extraction and opiates up for grabs. And that wasn’t even a big deal. It was more like, “No, best not.”

(Full disclosure: I do drink wine. If you tried to take it from me, I might have to hurt you. This would be unacceptable behavior for an AA member, obviously, or an NA member, because for NA members, alcohol is a drug from which they must also abstain. Some people have said I’ve just “switched addictions.” I won’t argue that here, but only say that I’m very happy with my life and my accomplishments, and I feel that I have achieved a pleasant, non-life-threatening balance. Moderation was option for me.)

All that said, again, I don’t begrudge my time in AA or the people (anymore—I used to be a bit of shit about it) because it gave me something relatively safe to do while I was getting to my own realization.

It takes what it takes.

As far as what the courts are doing, my opinion, which I realize is very fringe: first of all, a large number of these people shouldn’t even be in front of a judge. We need to decriminalize drug possession and use, and instead offer treatment, free of charge. Offer, not mandate.

If a crime has been committed against another person (as with DUI or child abuse), AA or any other treatment should, again, be offered free of charge. Offered, not mandated. Regular charges for crimes should apply. I'm sympathetic to the idea of treatment as an option to sentencing (keeping in mind that in my world possession or use in itself is not a crime), but I still don’t like the idea of treatment as a sentence. Treatment should be an uncoerced choice.

And the most important thing, while we’re offering: offer assistance in other crucial areas. When I was ready to quit, I had the ability to pick up the pieces and make a good life out of them. I believe this both shortened and lightened my ordeal considerably. Many people don’t have that. Many people’s lives completely suck. There is abuse, there is poverty, there is boredom, there is depression, and/or there is a general sense of hopelessness or purposelessness in their actual lives. These issues are what I’d focus on. In my experience, most reasonably happy people with stable lives don’t want to get drunk and high. (Most, not all.) See Rat Park.

I apologize for the obnoxiously long post. tl;dr I don't blame you.

benbradley said:

And that's where appropriately-tried-and-sentenced alcohol offendors belong, not in some church basement or clubhouse being told "don't drink and go to meetings."



Then why are the Big Book and 12&12 as I described?

I'll have to double-check what AAWS pays for rent in the Interchurch Center.


http://silkworth.net/aafiles/timelines_public.html

Here's the same story of "my friend Ebby" as told by Bill Wilson:

Big Book of Alcoholics Anonymous, p. 9

Some members talk about getting to AA through a "nudge from the judge" - many such judges are THEMSELVES members of AA, but do not disclose it when "suggesting" defendants go to AA, a clear conflict of interest!

Making courts and prisons aware of AA and offering to help offenders with drinking problems has been part of what AA does since even before AA's "official" birth, as Ebby's story above demonstrates.

AA cares so little about what courts do that AA has at least one statement on it. Of course, that makes it sound like courts are sending people to AA "out of the blue" and ignores AA's efforts ever since the start to get the message out to courts that "we can help your alcohol-related offendors[and suspects], don't hesitate to send them to us."

What would it take to understand AA? How many AA meetings would one have to go to before one understands AA? Three? Ten, "90 in 90?"

You were certainly lucky in that (though it's not clear what entity was sending you to AA), lucky you didn't have to take the system to court to stop it. The vast majority just give in, even those who know damn well it's a First Amendment violation.
In AA meetings, the stated "alternatives" to AA are jails, institutions, and death.

Click to expand...

But those offenders get out eventually, unless you are suggesting we just lock them up forever. So, it is still relevant that we have effective options to offer someone, regardless of whether they have been to, or are facing jail. Jail does not, sadly, change behavior much on its own.

And yes, AA does offer support in prisons and really, thank God. So many have found it very helpful while they were in, and credit it for providing good prosocial models to reduce reoffense. Some prisons also offer plenty of CBT stuff and whatever other programming is appropriate, but again, AA is not run by professionals which is very appealing for many.

I could be wrong, but I think your quote is from NA and it refers to the alternatives to untreated addiction (jails institutions or death), not alternatives to AA, but I don't have the NA text.

.

And Fruitbat, also very sorry for your loss as well.

Chrissy said:

I'm sympathetic to the idea of treatment as an option to sentencing (keeping in mind that in my world possession or use in itself is not a crime), but I still don’t like the idea of treatment as a sentence. Treatment should be an uncoerced choice.

Click to expand...

Your whole post was very well-thought-out and interesting, but this part resonated with me especially.

A treatment should be a treatment, and when it's mandated it's essentially being used as a punishment.

Forcing people into it is not only a violation of personal liberties, it's just pointless. It might sound cliched, but someone has to want to help themselves before therapy can benefit them. If they're coerced into it, it will probably be a negative experience, which means they'll be less likely to voluntarily seek help in the future.

Fruitbat said:

Thanks, Chrissy.

My husband (he said I could say it) went to AA for a few years decades ago and I went to Al-Anon. Time went on and eventually we got it together and moved on to other things but he hasn't had a drink in decades.

I think a lot of what they say is for people who are in that place where that's what they need. After all, "they" developed it themselves when "science" couldn't do zhit, and I am not sure that's changed much since. Although of course I hope it does. I can't imagine anyone would wish otherwise.

I saw so many people practically come crawling in and make it because they went there and did that with others who had been there and made it out themselves, instead of their former ways. The tragedies that go on... So, I really don't like hearing anyone who doesn't know try to pick it apart with smart sounding arguments. It is "take what you need and leave the rest." All that outside stuff belongs outside of it, imo.

Best wishes to you.

Click to expand...

Thank you! And to you.

With much respect, I think when a person is on their last leg, sometimes that spiritual awakening is almost a given. I mean, most people don't want to die, even if they hate their lives. Someone offers them a solution, with hope, with joy, with conviction, and most importantly with support, and it can be quite ecstatic. Serotonin kicks in long enough for symptoms to diminish and cravings to fade, and the person finally realizes that this is the sort of life they want.

Who can criticize that? I wept over and was comforted by both the Psalms and pamphlets put out by a Catholic ministry when I was in jail for 40 days, circa 2008. I was detoxing, and, well, in jail, and those readings helped me cope. These days, the Psalms are a bit obnoxious to me. It's like, hey, Davey, everyone is not actually out to get you, yanno. But I won't deny that they got me through the rough times.

The Otter said:

Your whole post was very well-thought-out and interesting, but this part resonated with me especially.

A treatment should be a treatment, and when it's mandated it's essentially being used as a punishment.

Forcing people into it is not only a violation of personal liberties, it's just pointless. It might sound cliched, but someone has to want to help themselves before therapy can benefit them. If they're coerced into it, it will probably be a negative experience, which means they'll be less likely to voluntarily seek help in the future.

Click to expand...

Possibly yes. If it's really good treatment, they might also possibly remember it in the future when they're actually wanting it. Still, no coercion is my default mode. (Also, interventions should be banned. I'm only partly kidding.)

I also agree about the personal liberties. If someone refuses medical treatment for cancer or depression or whathaveyou, we don't drag them to the hospital in handcuffs.

Chrissy said:

If someone refuses medical treatment for cancer or depression or whathaveyou, we don't drag them to the hospital in handcuffs.

Click to expand...

Actually, very often, we do. At least for depression, when they've attempted suicide, we do.

Incidentally, for me, the very first step of AA was anathema to me.

I was depressed. For a long time, I believed I was powerless. I didn't care if I killed myself.

It was only when I started believing that I wasn't powerless, that it was okay for me to be me, that my life was worth living, that I was able to control my drinking.

.

kuwisdelu said:

Actually, very often, we do. At least for depression, when they've attempted suicide, we do.

Click to expand...

I think that's wrong. I understand why we do it.

kuwisdelu said:

Incidentally, for me, the very first step of AA was anathema to me.

I was depressed. For a long time, I believed I was powerless. I didn't care if I killed myself.

It was only when I started believing that I wasn't powerless, that it was okay for me to be me, that my life was worth living, that I was able to control my drinking.

Click to expand...

Powerlessness was also not my cup of tea. Powerlessness was unempowering. I can see where it might work with denial though.

It seems so obvious that different people need different things. I remain baffled at every self-help commercial I hear on the radio: "It worked for me, it will work for you!"

Fruitbat said:

ITA. What is that saying? In the ambulance,

"Do you believe in God?"

"I do tonight."

Click to expand...

Indeed.

(Full disclosure: I actually believe in God. Heh.)

The Otter said:

Your whole post was very well-thought-out and interesting, but this part resonated with me especially.

A treatment should be a treatment, and when it's mandated it's essentially being used as a punishment.

Forcing people into it is not only a violation of personal liberties, it's just pointless. It might sound cliched, but someone has to want to help themselves before therapy can benefit them. If they're coerced into it, it will probably be a negative experience, which means they'll be less likely to voluntarily seek help in the future.

Click to expand...

I agree with this. When you're experiencing mental illness or a substance abuse problem, it can already be very hard to receive treatment while maintaining your dignity. It can be humiliating and dehumanizing to know that people don't trust you to be able to take care of yourself or avoid hurting yourself, and that, combined with stigma, can make it hard to admit that you have a problem that you can't control on your own.

Making treatment a consequence for your crimes makes it needlessly antagonistic, I think, and increases the risk that the person will reject it.

I've had some problems with anxiety all my life, and when I was a kid I had a lot of OCD and anxiety symptoms, including pulling out my hair compulsively. My parents, who meant well, were upset when they learned about this and told me I would have to see a therapist if I didn't stop. It was clearly a threat, like having to go to therapy would be a punishment.

The result? I did stop pulling out my hair, but I never sought help for the horrible anxiety or suicidal ideation I suffered throughout my teens.

It is perhaps notable that I am actually religious, but AA's version of a "higher power" still just doesn't work for me, or fit with my religion.

It would be especially strange to me to try to assign their "higher power" to some secular entity, but just as strange to try to fit it into my religion.

Edit: Or, at least, it doesn't work with my interpretation of my religion. Others from my religion may feel differently.

The Otter said:

A treatment should be a treatment, and when it's mandated it's essentially being used as a punishment.

Forcing people into it is not only a violation of personal liberties, it's just pointless. It might sound cliched, but someone has to want to help themselves before therapy can benefit them. If they're coerced into it, it will probably be a negative experience, which means they'll be less likely to voluntarily seek help in the future.

Click to expand...

As i've noted, I do not like to see one option jammed down someone's throat ("AA or else"). I don't know that forcing people to attend AA helpful. Forcing tends to create resistance and defensiveness.

But.

One might argue that when one has committed a crime, some of those personal liberties are sacrificed.

What is society to do with drunk drivers, for example, who do not wish to attend treatment/AA/consider stopping? Does society just walk away? I think that is where the jail option comes in (you have committed a crime and that is the consequence). Treatment is then offered as an alternative to jail and not necessarily punishment (although it can be seen that way and certainly feels that way).

And from that stand point, society may have an interest in someone's sobriety (i.e. require abstinence) if that person plans on driving. The person may have demonstrated they cannot drink and drive safely (i.e., will not stay under the legal limit, if one accepts that as "safe" driving). Most parole/probation contracts require abstinence, as the offender has the "option" of not agreeing and sticking it out in jail/prison.

That's where I think we need to offer a range of treatment choices as well. We don't lock people up forever. And I am certainly invested in providing almost anything that will reduce recidivism (and that includes substance abuse services). Twelve step oriented treatment (TSF), cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), various forms of pharmocology, private therapy (with someone trained in addictions) and other options need to be on the table. Providers need to be trained in motivational interviewing techniques to reduce defensiveness and increase people's interest in participation.

And getting people engaged in something really can be life or death. I have had people involved in multiple fatality accidents, who certainly wished they had availed themselves of help (not necessarily AA) sooner.

And the first step of AA says "powerless over alcohol", not powerless in general. Just over alcohol. Some people have histories that make this very clear. But if someone can reliably drink in moderation, then clearly that doesn't apply, happily for them!

bombergirl69 said:

But those offenders get out eventually, unless you are suggesting we just lock them up forever.

Click to expand...

Why would I suggest that? The sentences are for a certain amount of time in jail/prison, why should they receive any other sentence?

So, it is still relevant that we have effective options to offer someone, regardless of whether they have been to, or are facing jail. Jail does not, sadly, change behavior much on its own.

Click to expand...

There's two problems with AA in prison. One is whether it's an "effective option." The other is that very often AA meeting attendance counts as good behavior points, effectively promoting AA for inmates. This is the state promoting religion, and AA is indeed religious, no matter how often "it's a spiritual program, it's not religious" and "religion is for those afraid of Hell, spirituality is for those who have been there" are repeated in meetings.

And yes, AA does offer support in prisons and really, thank God.

Click to expand...

Reaching in my big bag here...

I could be wrong, but I think your quote is from NA and it refers to the alternatives to untreated addiction (jails institutions or death), not alternatives to AA, but I don't have the NA text.

Click to expand...

It may well be in the printed NA literature (a quick google indicates so) and may well have originated there, but I heard it innumerable times in AA as The Three Alternatives To AA. It's hard to trace where many of these slogans originated, though if this one were believed in AA to have come from NA, it just might die out from AA really fast. There's a big of antagonism between the two groups.

"Easy Does It" and a few others are directly from the Big Book's first 164 pages so their provenance in 12-step groups is known, but no doubt they get repeated in all the 12-step fellowships.

benbradley said:

Why would I suggest that? The sentences are for a certain amount of time in jail/prison, why should they receive any other sentence?
There's two problems with AA in prison. One is whether it's an "effective option." The other is that very often AA meeting attendance counts as good behavior points, effectively promoting AA for inmates. This is the state promoting religion, and AA is indeed religious, no matter how often "it's a spiritual program, it's not religious" and "religion is for those afraid of Hell, spirituality is for those who have been there" are repeated in meetings.
Reaching in my big bag here...

It may well be in the printed NA literature (a quick google indicates so) and may well have originated there, but I heard it innumerable times in AA as The Three Alternatives To AA. It's hard to trace where many of these slogans originated, though if this one were believed in AA to have come from NA, it just might die out from AA really fast. There's a big of antagonism between the two groups.

"Easy Does It" and a few others are directly from the Big Book's first 164 pages so their provenance in 12-step groups is known, but no doubt they get repeated in all the 12-step fellowships.

Click to expand...

Well, my point about offenders getting out is that if they have not done anything but jail/prison, they may not be abe to avoid making the same decisions that landed them in the pokey to begin with. For many, treatment of some sort will still be very important, which is why jails and prisons do try to offer programming, and why drug courts offer treatment as an alternative. Simply incarcerating people might provide them with some period of abstinence (but not in prison; if they want it they seem to get it), but again, for those who need it, no skills for how to remain that way (if that's relevant, and it is for many)

As far as correctional policy, I can't speak for what they are and are not offering,but I do know when I was running cognitive behavioral groups that had nothing to do with AA, inmates got credit. They seem to get credit for all types of programs, so I don't think it's only for AA. They may get credit for attending a religious service as well, I don't know. Sometimes they don't get credit for any of it.

I guess we'll just have to disagree about AA being religious vs spiritual!

And on the quote, perhaps it depends on your meeting, as I'm pretty sure that is in reference to untreated addiction (addiction without recovery). One might take that to mean "AA" but I think it's fair that it's also just a generalization about what can happen (to some people, not all) if they don't get a handle on their use in any sense, not just AA.

bombergirl69 said:

As i've noted, I do not like to see one option jammed down someone's throat ("AA or else"). I don't know that forcing people to attend AA helpful. Forcing tends to create resistance and defensiveness.

But.

One might argue that when one has committed a crime, some of those personal liberties are sacrificed.

Click to expand...

Religious liberty, as listed in the First Amendment, isn't one of those that ever gets sacrificed. Those on death row are allowed to see any clergy of any religion they want who will go visit them, or no one at all. They can have clergy with them at their execution. Religious liberty is respected even after death.

The US Government, in its near-infiinte wisdom, even extends this to non-citizens. Those held in Guantanamo Bay (who are mostly Muslim) get copies of the Koran if they want.

But maybe alcohol-related crimes are different...

Fruitbat said:

Having recently lost my father to cirrhosis, I just know I'd so much rather if he had hung out at the meetings rather than the bars.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry too, Fruitbat. I was thinking I feel the same about the man who decided to get behind the wheel of a car while drunk one night, and who killed my nineteen-year-old sister and the boy she was with. He was in his forties, and already had other DUI convictions, but that didn't wake him up enough. I don't know if killing two teens made a difference. The laws then (the 70's) were a good deal more lenient than they are now.

bombergirl69 said:

I think Jari's story (thanks for sharing that) is relatively common, in that many people decide they are high risk users, and are able to "not pick up" and just walk away. I wish we knew more about these folks,but we probably know less because we don't tend to see them!!! What makes it so they can do this? It is genetic? Why them and not others?

Click to expand...

I wish I had any answers. I'm sorry if I made it sound easy. It hasn't been. I think I was a lot more than "high risk," but then we get into the whole "true addict" thing again, and who knows. From my perspective, I'm a real addict. Even though I haven't used in more than 35 years, in times of trouble I still want to get drunk and stoned so much that I've had some near misses. I think I am fortunate to have clear memories of being miserable even when fried, or the next day, those kinds of things. I don't see drugs or alcohol as a benefit to me. I do see my ongoing if somewhat intermittent urges as a danger.

You're welcome for the shared story, although I stripped a lot of detail out of it.

I will say one thing that was unusual in my case, at that time, was that I started using as a grade-schooler and stopped as an early high-schooler. Sadly, starting so young is probably not unusual now. I feel lucky that I realized I could stop, and could keep on not using. I'm not cocky about it, though. I almost feel like it's a personalized "thing" that wants to get me. I don't want to let it in. Apologies if that sounds like a scary way of thinking. I don't mean it literally. I don't believe I do, anyway.

We're talking powerlessness. I think we human beings are very powerful, but somewhat brainwashed to think we're not. If you're a drug addict or a serious alcoholic, there's an idea you can never overcome old patterns of behavior. We're too flawed.

I don't believe it, but I think that kind of belief sometimes leads people to give up. They think they're doomed to die of an O.D. or to drink themselves to death, so why not?

Our society at large has some weird messages about alcohol and drug use, too. It's encouraged until it's not.

"Hey kids! Remember all the FUN you used to have playing? Well, you're too old to play now, but you can (and should) fry your brain to be happy again. You're a boring waste of time if you don't! However, keep it up too long, and we'll despise you! Have your fun, kids! But don't kill yourselves or anyone else, even though we know some of you will with this kind of fun. Thins the herd."

It's sad and confusing.

Uh oh. I think I missed the point?

If someone is "forced" to do AA (which I don't support although I know it happens), and AA (some say) has a mandatory "religious" ideology, then it is a violation of religious freedom?

Is that it?

So, that would speak to the coercive element? That it's a violation to coerce someone?

Okay. So again, I think AA would say, don't go. And I would agree. If someone does not want to go, they don't have to go (ideally). Then they could attend/find/create an alternative that does what they want without the stuff they don't want. CBT is an alternative.Some pharm options are alternatives. Rational recovery, At wit' end, Native approaches (which are definitely spiritual but many people prefer them).

I am certainly supportive of alternatives! Particuarly ones clients will do!

ETA: Thanks Jari. Your ability to remember the misery is probably a gift!

AA does not have a mandatory religious element. This point of contention has been proven in past threads similar to this. Can we drop that bone, please?

CrastersBabies said:

AA does not have a mandatory religious element. This point of contention has been proven in past threads similar to this. Can we drop that bone, please?

Click to expand...

Asking people to submit to a higher power is a religious element, no matter how you cut it. So no, we are not going to drop that bone.

1. It's not a requirement
2. Alternatives are made available
3. New literature explains this

I'm not saying it's not a faith-based support group (though it's trending away from that in many areas), but believing is absolutely NOT mandatory. So, let's be very clear on that.

bombergirl69 said:

ETA: Thanks Jari. Your ability to remember the misery is probably a gift!

Click to expand...

Yes, it must be. That's a good way to look at it, anyway. I think too, the fact my older sister died owing to someone else's drunken actions a year before I quit probably was a big factor.

Although it didn't "click" at the very time it happened, other than as a horribly sad and shocking end-of-the-world tragedy, I was later able to analyze and see the massive selfishness on the part of that driver. Thankfully, I was too young to drive when I was using, or I might have been that selfish, too.