If you don't know about AA and the 12 steps

[blessedtoo]

Asking only people with no connection to AA to comment in this thread makes about as much sense as asking a group of ditch diggers to join a discussion on quantum physics. Garbage in, garbage out, and the first post is most certainly garbage to those of us who have been there, done that, and have the scars and the tee shirt to prove it.

What I would like to see is for the OP to come clean about the real reason he is attacking AA other than to show how smart he is. People who are in no way connected with AA or affected by anyone who is would have no reason to go on a rant like this.

There are a kazillion good adages floating around AA, and one that seems to be appropriate here is “Don’t analyze, utilize.” Methinks the OP doth protest too much.

Outstanding.

 

[blessedtoo]

I was just looking at the first step, so far. Is there some reason you are offended that someone would suggest revising a 70-year-old treatment program?
If you get cancer, will you go for a treatment from the 30’s, unaltered and unalterable, or do you think you would go to a modern doctor?I have answered quite clearly, and if you had read some of my posts instead of letting your knee jerk, you would have known that.Do you have reason to suspect that a rational look such as I suggest would be ‘trashing this institution’?

Then reduced power would be the more accurate way to say it than powerless, wouldn’t you say?
So less manageable would be more accurate than ‘unmanageable’. That seems to be the whole point, if the person would carry out their management plan, they would be successful.Well ‘addiction’ is a useless word, I would prefer something a little more descriptive.
How many ‘addicts’ are self-diagnosed? Are every one of those diagnosis accurate?
If he stops drinking he will likely stay in AA. If he continues you are less likely to see him often. This gives the observer (you or I attending regular AA meetings) the impression that many are helped by AA, even if the spontaneous remission rate is higher than the success rate of AA.This really makes it look a little shaky to make a ridiculous generalization like ‘alcoholics (who by the way are mainly self-diagnosed) are powerless over alcohol’. It just takes one example to make the statement plainly false.Too bad that no matter which god they pick in AA, it doesn’t seem to affect the success rate.
If you would care to cite the source, we can look at it.

You have to approach the program within the context of it’s era. My g-pa, a skid row chronic DT’s alcoholic was the standard bearer of alcoholics at the time AA began. For these folks, “unmanageable” and “powerless” were completely appropriate terms to describe the disasters of their lives. Many were directed to AA (my g-pa included) because the local sheriff was tired of collecting them from the gutters, asleep in their own vomit, and dragging them off to the county jails. Wouldn’t you call that “unmanageable”?

In the intervening years, starting around the early 70’s, the program received an influx of new members thanks, in part, to the detritus left in the wake of the drug culture. Many of these folks had what is called “high bottoms” - their lives had not been completely destroyed and they were seeking help earlier. AA has graciously embraced all those who, through their own discernment, come to conclude that they can’t manage their addiction without help. Often, because these “higher bottom” members still have remnants of a pulled-together life, they return to their addictions after treatment, convinced that things were not as bad as they thought. AA, in it’s wisdom, understands that a bottom is just that, and if an addict hasn’t hit it, he won’t recover. But AA will not turn away anyone who is willing to try, no matter what point on the continuum of addiction they may be on.

Is the program outdated? I don’t think so. The verbage may seem extreme but isn’t it best to address the worst possible case scenario rather than raise the bar and allow the sickest to slip under the radar? And like with all programs, the steps as written are not the whole story. One learns how to apply the steps to their own personal situation through the meetings, through the one on one relationship with the sponsor, and through general fellowship with other drunks.

It’s a glorious, and I believe, inspired program.

 

[wynnejj]

Personally, I would like to take text of the AA’s 12 steps, edit the word “alcohol” in all places with “whatever is your most egregious sin”, then take step #5 and replace “another human being” with a “Catholic priest”. Then I would take the document and post to the door of each confessional. It is in fact the exact formula for a good confession with proper repentance. It works for Catholics, it works for alcoholics. Do it - everybody!

 

[strngrnrth]

It depends on the group. The book “12 Step Horror Stories” gives examples of how nightmarish the program can become in the wrong hands. Imagine a confession where anyone who has been to confession over 12 times or for ten years can hear a confession and interpret the rules and what is a sin. Such groups become cults in the most painful and scary sense of the word. But in the best hands it does work for many people. I advise my friends to use the group with their eyes open and not just “join” and follow uncritically. If someone, a sponsor or anyone with a lot of time, starts getting unfair, irrational, controlling or abusive in any way, I think it’s time to move on.

 

[_A]

Personally, I would like to take text of the AA’s 12 steps, edit the word “alcohol” in all places with “whatever is your most egregious sin”, then take step #5 and replace “another human being” with a “Catholic priest”. Then I would take the document and post to the door of each confessional. It is in fact the exact formula for a good confession with proper repentance. It works for Catholics, it works for alcoholics. Do it - everybody!

But it doesn’t work for alcohol, and a quick look at any serious study will show that.

Does anyone know what AA says about their efficacy?

It depends on the group. The book “12 Step Horror Stories” gives examples of how nightmarish the program can become in the wrong hands. Imagine a confession where anyone who has been to confession over 12 times or for ten years can hear a confession and interpret the rules and what is a sin. Such groups become cults in the most painful and scary sense of the word. But in the best hands it does work for many people. I advise my friends to use the group with their eyes open and not just “join” and follow uncritically. If someone, a sponsor or anyone with a lot of time, starts getting unfair, irrational, controlling or abusive in any way, I think it’s time to move on.

This is one of the problems with it. There is something it the AA literature that says the organization will be forever unprofessional.

Would it be a reasonable program if they stuck to the same old doctrine whether it worked or not?

Does anyone know AA well enough to know what kind of information they gather about their success rates?

 

[blessedtoo]

But it doesn’t work for alcohol, and a quick look at any serious study will show that.

Does anyone know what AA says about their efficacy?

This is one of the problems with it. There is something it the AA literature that says the organization will be forever unprofessional.

Would it be a reasonable program if they stuck to the same old doctrine whether it worked or not?

Does anyone know AA well enough to know what kind of information they gather about their success rates?

1. Professionals have conducted surveys among veterans, patients, and selected groups of AAs. The accuracy is not the subject of my knowledge. But the facts about present-day A.A. are these in their studies: (a) A definite 75% fail to maintain sobriety. (b) Probably no more than one to five percent maintain permanent sobriety. (c) As often as not, those who aligned with AA have a lower success rate than those who got sober without AA. (d) To date there has been no adequate survey of success or failure among those AAs who - like the pioneers - were born again Christians, reliant upon the Creator for help, and joined together in some Christian church or Bible fellowship, or prayer group.
   mental-health-matters.com/articles/article.php?artID=601

Effectiveness of Alcoholics Anonymous

Critics argue that AA groups apply the disease model to all problem drinkers, whether or not they are full-blown alcoholics,[54] and believe that more options should be available to problem drinkers who can manage their drinking with the right treatment.[55]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effectiveness_of_Alcoholics_Anonymous

With regard to AA remaining “unprofessional”, you might want to read

• Twelve Traditions

*Why don’t you present evidence of an alternative to AA? What programs that are not based on 12 Step recovery have proven more effective over such a long period of time and for such a large demographic?

 

[urban-hermit]

With regard to AA remaining “unprofessional”, you might want to read

• Twelve Traditions*

Why don’t you present evidence of an alternative to AA? What programs that are not based on 12 Step recovery have proven more effective over such a long period of time and for such a large demographic?

Exactly - it’s easy to find fault, but much harder to present a better option.

 

[Swan]

I think it is an error to categorize all alcoholics - or addicts of any kind - into one group. We are all different physiologically, mentally, emotionally. To expect one type of treatment to work for everyone isn’t logical. To expect the same type of behavior from all addicts in their control, or lack thereof, of their addiction isn’t either.

Alcoholism runs on both sides of my family (my dad, mom’s dad, mom’s brother, my brother, etc…). My dad drank to self-medicate. He was (and I am) bipolar. His mental illness was both affected by and affected his drinking. Because he was of the old school when it came to mental illness, he never sought medical or psychiatric help. My brother, I suspect, had the same problem. Alcohol was their medication. Interestingly, I do not know if they were “alcoholics” in the sense of the word whereby they had an “alcoholic gene” but there is no doubt that they were addicted. My father committed suicide (two weeks before a doctor had tried to put him on antidepressants - my dad refused, saying “I’m not crazy!”; and my brother died from liver disease and throat cancer (the result of drinking a fifth of Chivas a day for decades). Somehow I have managed to avoid substand abuse. One thing for me to be thankful for - though having bipolar disorder, I can certainly understand how it could drive someone to drink.

 

[blessedtoo]

I think it is an error to categorize all alcoholics - or addicts of any kind - into one group. We are all different physiologically, mentally, emotionally. To expect one type of treatment to work for everyone isn’t logical. To expect the same type of behavior from all addicts in their control, or lack thereof, of their addiction isn’t either.

Alcoholism runs on both sides of my family (my dad, mom’s dad, mom’s brother, my brother, etc…). My dad drank to self-medicate. He was (and I am) bipolar. His mental illness was both affected by and affected his drinking. Because he was of the old school when it came to mental illness, he never sought medical or psychiatric help. My brother, I suspect, had the same problem. Alcohol was their medication. Interestingly, I do not know if they were “alcoholics” in the sense of the word whereby they had an “alcoholic gene” but there is no doubt that they were addicted. My father committed suicide (two weeks before a doctor had tried to put him on antidepressants - my dad refused, saying “I’m not crazy!”; and my brother died from liver disease and throat cancer (the result of drinking a fifth of Chivas a day for decades). Somehow I have managed to avoid substand abuse. One thing for me to be thankful for - though having bipolar disorder, I can certainly understand how it could drive someone to drink.

I am so deeply sorry for the profound losses you have suffered. I really can’t imagine.

My mama suffered all her life (and continues, into her 80’s) as a result of her dad’s alcoholism and suicide. She never drank - perhaps as a reaction to his extreme chronic alcoholism. But the “gene”, if there is such a thing, continued in me and my sis. It is said that alcoholism can skip a generation or can “skip” over family members. You were blessed to have an aversion to booze, especially in light of the great trauma you suffered.

God bless.

 

[_A]

With regard to AA remaining “unprofessional”, you might want to read

• Twelve Traditions*

I have, thank you. This program cannot be improved regardless of how well or poorly it works, that is my point.

From your post…

Probably no more than one to five percent maintain permanent sobriety. (c) As often as not, those who aligned with AA have a lower success rate than those who got sober without AA

Emphasis mine.
This kind of result suggests that AA is having an overall negative effect.
No-one cares to answer my question about AA’s interest in it’s efficacy?

Why don’t you present evidence of an alternative to AA?

There is plenty of evidence of alternatives to AA. Try Rational Recovery, or SOS, or look up Stanton Peele. If anyone really needs resources for recovery I have a broad list I can send them, but I wanted to discuss AA in particular, because they nearly have a monopoly in this field, and they don’t care a bit how well their programming works to assist someone in achieving a goal of abstinence.

What programs that are not based on 12 Step recovery have proven more effective over such a long period of time and for such a large demographic?

The only thing that regularly performs better than AA is non-intervention. poeple seem to have a better chance of curing themselves. It seems that a strong relationship with a supportive partner helps a lot, and there are many flavours of treatment out there. What does seem true is that what people get out of the group they get from being in a group like themselves (generally, there are always exceptions).
I have often wondered why the Catholic Church (with their love of wine) haven’t developed their own system for helping people through this. Something which matches Catholic doctrine and customs. It might work much better for Catholics, and then you would not have people inventing god as they wish for step 3.
I disagree that god is needed at all, but could see how, for a person of Catholic faith, it could help to be on familiar ground.

I think it is an error to categorize all alcoholics - or addicts of any kind - into one group. We are all different physiologically, mentally, emotionally. To expect one type of treatment to work for everyone isn’t logical. To expect the same type of behavior from all addicts in their control, or lack thereof, of their addiction isn’t either.

Alcoholism runs on both sides of my family (my dad, mom’s dad, mom’s brother, my brother, etc…). My dad drank to self-medicate. He was (and I am) bipolar. His mental illness was both affected by and affected his drinking. Because he was of the old school when it came to mental illness, he never sought medical or psychiatric help. My brother, I suspect, had the same problem. Alcohol was their medication. Interestingly, I do not know if they were “alcoholics” in the sense of the word whereby they had an “alcoholic gene” but there is no doubt that they were addicted. My father committed suicide (two weeks before a doctor had tried to put him on antidepressants - my dad refused, saying “I’m not crazy!”; and my brother died from liver disease and throat cancer (the result of drinking a fifth of Chivas a day for decades). Somehow I have managed to avoid substand abuse. One thing for me to be thankful for - though having bipolar disorder, I can certainly understand how it could drive someone to drink.

Well said, I have often wondered how many people are the ‘self-medicating’ variety and never find appropriate help because of this stigma…
I am pleased that you have found another way to deal with your unique mind.

 

[Seeker_Of_Truth]

The only thing that regularly performs better than AA is non-intervention. poeple seem to have a better chance of curing themselves. It seems that a strong relationship with a supportive partner helps a lot, and there are many flavours of treatment out there. What does seem true is that what people get out of the group they get from being in a group like themselves (generally, there are always exceptions).

A, is this something you believe from personal observation, or is this the result of a study? Thanks in advance.

Seeker

 

[Seeker_Of_Truth]

I think it is an error to categorize all alcoholics - or addicts of any kind - into one group. We are all different physiologically, mentally, emotionally. To expect one type of treatment to work for everyone isn’t logical. To expect the same type of behavior from all addicts in their control, or lack thereof, of their addiction isn’t either.

Alcoholism runs on both sides of my family (my dad, mom’s dad, mom’s brother, my brother, etc…). My dad drank to self-medicate. He was (and I am) bipolar. His mental illness was both affected by and affected his drinking. Because he was of the old school when it came to mental illness, he never sought medical or psychiatric help. My brother, I suspect, had the same problem. Alcohol was their medication. Interestingly, I do not know if they were “alcoholics” in the sense of the word whereby they had an “alcoholic gene” but there is no doubt that they were addicted. My father committed suicide (two weeks before a doctor had tried to put him on antidepressants - my dad refused, saying “I’m not crazy!”; and my brother died from liver disease and throat cancer (the result of drinking a fifth of Chivas a day for decades). Somehow I have managed to avoid substand abuse. One thing for me to be thankful for - though having bipolar disorder, I can certainly understand how it could drive someone to drink.

Swan,

I am very sorry that this happened to you. Having an alcoholic in a family is something very hard to live with, and I am glad that it didn’t drive you to substance abuse. Even though it may seem at times that it will make things better (or at least make them disappear), it won’t. My mother is bipolar, and I know the difficulties it can bring. However, she was able to find the right medication to help her with her chemical imbalances, and she is doing much, much better. I pray that you may find something like this to help you also.

Seeker

 

[_A]

A, is this something you believe from personal observation, or is this the result of a study? Thanks in advance.

Seeker

A little of both, actually

The Harvard Mental Health Letter, from The Harvard Medical School, stated quite plainly:
On their own
There is a high rate of recovery among alcoholics and addicts, treated and untreated. According to one estimate, heroin addicts break the habit in an average of 11 years. Another estimate is that at least 50% of alcoholics eventually free themselves although only 10% are ever treated. One recent study found that 80% of all alcoholics who recover for a year or more do so on their own, some after being unsuccessfully treated. When a group of these self-treated alcoholics was interviewed, 57% said they simply decided that alcohol was bad for them. Twenty-nine percent said health problems, frightening experiences, accidents, or blackouts persuaded them to quit. Others used such phrases as “Things were building up” or “I was sick and tired of it.” Support from a husband or wife was important in sustaining the resolution.
Treatment of Drug Abuse and Addiction – Part III, The Harvard Mental Health Letter, Volume 12, Number 4, October 1995, page 3.
(See Aug. (Part I), Sept. (Part II), Oct. 1995 (Part III)

Also, of all the people I know personally who have walked away from dependency, none of them attend AA. Of all those I know who keep ‘relapsing’, ALL of them attend AA regularly.

 

[Wirraway]

the OP’s rants would be a little more credible if he had any personal experience with addiction.

as noted, he’s been pwned by the posters who have.

 

[_A]

the OP’s rants would be a little more credible if he had any personal experience with addiction.

as noted, he’s been pwned by the posters who have.

Personal experience, while I do have some, is not the best way to look at these things. Do you think ‘personal experience’ is the best way to deal with cancer? Or would you run straight to the Oncologist?

 

[estesbob]

AA is a religious organization. You don’t have to believe me, you could just consider that the US courts which have considered it have decided that it is.
As to what kind of church it is, well, what do they worship?
They don’t think their ‘Higher Power’ can save them, they would not fear taking a drink if they really believed in their higher power. What is more powerful than even their higher power, I wonder?

Let me see. I’ve been attending AA meetings for 23 years. And you, have never been to a meeting have never dealt an addiction problem have it all figured out. .

I think the main difference between you and I is I believe you learn from experience and you think you can read a book , Google up some websites and reach profound conclusion about a program that is saving millions of people’s lives. I’m not about to debate the effectiveness of AA with somebody who does not have a clue of how the program works. I post only so that any lurker who might be considering AA knows what you post is pure unsubstantiated nonsense

 

[_A]

Let me see. I’ve been attending AA meetings for 23 years. And you, have never been to a meeting have never dealt an addiction problem have it all figured out.

You make a lot of incorrect assumptions there. Did you even read what I wrote? Let me help you.
"_A_:

I have been to many meetings of AA (first in 1981 or 82) and currently about 1/10 of my clients have some kind of substance abuse issue. Many of them attend AA (though the only client I have who has beaten alcohol for any length of time did it with real doctors and no AA).

I will add that I have beaten an addiction (with a doctor, not with some 1930’s religious group like AA)
I don’t have it all figured out, I just think with their complete disinterest in their own efficacy, that a group willing to learn and change (like some kind of medical treatment) would have a better chance of helping people.

By the way, my experience with AA goes back a little further than yours, not that it matters much. I just wanted to look clearly at it, examine it reasonably.

I think the main difference between you and I is I believe you learn from experience and you think you can read a book ,

You are mistaken again, but that happens when you jump to conclusions. I think both can be good ways to learn.

Google up some websites and reach profound conclusion about a program that is saving millions of people’s lives. I’m not about to debate the effectiveness of AA with somebody who does not have a clue of how the program works. I post only so that any lurker who might be considering AA knows what you post is pure unsubstantiated nonsense

You are making another false claim there. Why not tell me what interest AA has in their religious organizations efficacy? I am guessing because you would be embarrassed to admit it.

Let me guess, you are in the AA congregation and will be completely open to any examination of this faith of yours?

 

[Ruthie]

My goodness, you are certainly prejudiced against AA, aren’t you?

You continue to call it a religious organization when it is not.

Let me quote the Preamble, which you apparently missed hearing in all those AA meetings you supposedly attended.

"Alcoholics Anonymous is a fellowship of men and women who share their experience, strength, and hope with each other that they may solve their common problem and help others to recover from alcoholism.

The only requirement for membership is a desire to stop drinking.

There are no dues or fees for AA membership; we are self-supporting through our own contributions.

AA is not allied with any sect, denomination, politics, organization or institution; does not wish to engage in any controversy, neither endorses nor opposes any causes.

Our primary purpose is to stay sober and help other alcoholics to achieve sobriety."

The only mention of religion is that we are NOT allied with any sect or denomination, or any organization or institution.

It is a **fellowship **of those staying sober and helping others achieve sobriety. The **only **requirement for membership is “a desire to stop drinking” - nothing about religion there.

Ruthie

 

[estesbob]

My goodness, you are certainly prejudiced against AA, aren’t you?

You continue to call it a religious organization when it is not.

Let me quote the Preamble, which you apparently missed hearing in all those AA meetings you supposedly attended.

"Alcoholics Anonymous is a fellowship of men and women who share their experience, strength, and hope with each other that they may solve their common problem and help others to recover from alcoholism.

The only requirement for membership is a desire to stop drinking.

There are no dues or fees for AA membership; we are self-supporting through our own contributions.

AA is not allied with any sect, denomination, politics, organization or institution; does not wish to engage in any controversy, neither endorses nor opposes any causes.

Our primary purpose is to stay sober and help other alcoholics to achieve sobriety."

The only mention of religion is that we are NOT allied with any sect or denomination, or any organization or institution.

It is a **fellowship **of those staying sober and helping others achieve sobriety. The **only **requirement for membership is “a desire to stop drinking” - nothing about religion there.

Ruthie

Best to not respond. All that does is keep th thread going. People could get hurt-its like telling someone to forgo chemo for some new untested cancer treatment. The sooner this thread dies the better.

 

[Swan]

I would like to suggest that folks interested in this topic consider at least taking a look at the alternative programs mentioned by the OP. He mentions Rational Recovery, which I googled. Here is their website. I think it addresses many of the issues the OP has brought up and might better help folks understand the premise:

rational.org/faq.html