twelve steps as a cult religion and its ineffectiveness

[haawhat]

compelling arguements but also enough info for days of reading:

http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-effectiveness.html

[Jumbo]

I'll read it when I sober up.

[TradeTheBeal!]

The crippled need crutches.

[PokerPacker]

haven't read it, but i have read/heard other things about these 12 step programs and how they're less effective than trying on your own.

[DeanCollins]

haven't read it, but i have read/heard other things about these 12 step programs and how they're less effective than trying on your own.

Penn and Teller made some ridiculous short about that (morons). But the point that is missed is that the people who walk into AA have already tried it "on their own" many times, so these are the hard cases. The other thing that skews that figure way to the negative is that AA is overloaded with court mandated visits by people that have no interest in being there. Factor them out and the success rate is probaly closer to 15%. I haven't read the "orange papers" but I recently saw a couple of his videos. Just another malcontent that couldn't make it in AA, so what's new?

edit: after looking at the link, comparing AA to jim jones' johnstown mass suicide? and you think this is credible why?

[motorhead]

I'll read it when I sober up.

LOL. Me too :laugh:

[CrabR]

the article is Bullcrap

From the AA Big Book

"RARELY HAVE we seen a person fail who has thoroughly followed our path. Those who do not recover are those who cannot or will not give themselves completely to this simple program"

From the article

"Nothing could be further from the truth. Even the most ardent true believers who will be honest about it recognize that A.A. and N.A. have at least 90% failure rates. "

Because people tend to do it their way instead of the AA way, most people who come to AA are trying to quite for there family, job,court order, etc. Until they try to stop for themselves they will not succeed

Treatment faculties also have 90% failure rates, rarely does one walk into a treatment facility for the first time and stop using or drinking.

Out of my stay at treatment facility in april 80, there was 43 of us. ater a year 6 were still sober 2 were dead. After 5 yrs only 2 of us had not had a relapse.

The treatment facility claimed a 80% one year "cure" rate. the way they got that figure was by calling the former patients and asking them if they were still sober. I volunteered there for over a year after i left and i did the telephone polls and people i had carted of to AA meeting drunk as a skunk claimed they were sober in the telephone poll and i had to put them down as sober after a year even though i had been with them when they were drunk

There is one key principle that i guarantee will work if more people followed it, I read it in the big book and followed the advice

" When all else fails work with another suffering alcoholic"

That is what saved my a**, and i guarantee you if you are thinking about taking a drink and you have a drunk throwing up in their car [never carry a drunk in your car] you will lose the desire very quickly

This April will make 28 yrs for me and for the first 12 years I spoke at schools, ASAP and a few tv shows, carted about drunks volunteered at treatment facilities. I did not do it so much to help others as to keep my a** sober and remind myself of where i had been. Bottom line is when I was getting sober ther was always someone there for me, and they did so they could stay sober.

Nothing more revolting than a drunk...............if you are sober

sorry if i rambled

[dockeryfan]

I went to an AA meeting to give a friend support long ago. It may sound strange, but it was a pretty healthy environment. Maybe a little campy for some (Easy Does it) but it works. Worked for her.

[TimmySmith]

AA claims 100% success if people "commit" to the program. Tough to argue with, since they could claim that any failure is the result of non-commitment.

Orange claims almost 100% failure rate. Tough to argue with since just about all alcoholics relapse at some point.

IMO AA does way more good than harm and is probably responsible for the majority of sober time among Alcoholics. The behavior of AA members is borderline cultish, but you quickly realize that their sobriety is their top priority. Something non-alcoholics cannot possibly relate to.

[McMetal]

There are a LOT of problems with AA and similar Twelve Steps programs. I am reading an excellent book about the nature of addiction and it has a lot to say about some of their shortcomings. The bottom line is - it's not for everyone. If it works for you - great, but a one-size-fits-all approach is not the best path to recovery for many people.

[CrabR]

AA claims 100% success if people "commit" to the program. Tough to argue with, since they could claim that any failure is the result of non-commitment.

AA has never claimed that, in the Big Book it states that some unfortunate individuals will not get sober. Some ,for what ever reason are incapable of it.

but you quickly realize that their sobriety is their top priority. Something non-alcoholics cannot possibly relate to.

Bingo

[DeanCollins]

There are a LOT of problems with AA and similar Twelve Steps programs. I am reading an excellent book about the nature of addiction and it has a lot to say about some of their shortcomings. The bottom line is - it's not for everyone. If it works for you - great, but a one-size-fits-all approach is not the best path to recovery for many people.

McMetal, would you like to elaborate about "LOT of problems"? The problems are the with the people. Most alcoholics (if not all) have deeply routed psychological issues that are mostly childhood related and have been compounded by other traumatic life experiences (relationships etc...). Along with these usually comes authority figure issues, learning disabilities (comprehension, won't listen , won't follow directions) inability to accept criticizm, honesty issues (self honesty mostly) and other addictions that they switch too (gambling, drugs, sex, work...) where they mood alter and hide from their problems. We all have an ego that tells us, no matter how ***ed up we are, that we're "OK". And until a person can break through the denial of ego, nothing is going to help them long term.

In july I'll have 19 years clean and sober. In the 21 years (yes it took 2 years for me to "get it"), I've only met a few people, that admitted they had a serious alcohol problem, tell me that they have quit on their own for more than 5 years. Yet I know hundreds of people with 10,20,30,..50+ years that attend AA. My mother has 33 years. And btw the AA figures of 5% were based on people making it past 5 years uninterupted sobriety (census of 1990 when the courts weren't sending so many people).

What I don't get is the haters. AA is non profit, no fees, doesn't advertise, doesn't recruit, follows no religeous doctrine, has no rules... what's to complain about? The people that are ****in' are malcontents that were probably sent by the court (who also probably had to attend ASAP and counseling and/or treatment center) that got their panties in a wad and need something to feel sorry for themselves over. :doh:

Religeous cult? A much better case could be made for ES being a religeous cult .

[chascougs]

14 years sober, I continue to go to AA meetings to see what happens to drunks who don't go to AA meetings. Seriously, 12 Steps were a road map on how to get my life into some type of order out of the chaos I had created in over 16 years of drinking and drugging. The spiritual awakening I experienced as a result of working a 12 step program was not a "religious" experience but rather a slow awakening to the fact that I really don't know all the answers and in fact I don't even know most of the questions so stop trying to "figure it all out" and live life today, not in the past or in the future but right now. Pretty simple.

[haawhat]

Penn and Teller made some ridiculous short about that (morons). But the point that is missed is that the people who walk into AA have already tried it "on their own" many times, so these are the hard cases. The other thing that skews that figure way to the negative is that AA is overloaded with court mandated visits by people that have no interest in being there. Factor them out and the success rate is probaly closer to 15%. I haven't read the "orange papers" but I recently saw a couple of his videos. Just another malcontent that couldn't make it in AA, so what's new?

edit: after looking at the link, comparing AA to jim jones' johnstown mass suicide? and you think this is credible why?

i didnt buy it either when i first started reading it, but i have yet to see an arguement stand up to any of the data or studies he presents. for instance there is a term for those who try it "on their own" called "spontaneous remission" and its rate of success is identical to that of AAs.

here is the link to the findings of dr. george e. vaillant, a current member of the board of trustees of alcoholics anonymous world services: http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-effectiveness.html#Vaillant

as you see these figures are not "skewed" as the control groups, which was given no treatment, were alcoholics chosen at random, meaning there were just as many of the "hard cases" and "people that have no interest in being there" as there were in the aa groups.

as far as cults go, i dont think hes comparing outcomes, rather the techniques involved in recruiting and keeping members.

[DeanCollins]

i didnt buy it either when i first started reading it, but i have yet to see an arguement stand up to any of the data or studies he presents. for instance there is a term for those who try it "on their own" called "spontaneous remission" and its rate of success is identical to that of AAs.

here is the link to the findings of dr. george e. vaillant, a current member of the board of trustees of alcoholics anonymous world services: http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-effectiveness.html#Vaillant

as you see these figures are not "skewed" as the control groups, which was given no treatment, were alcoholics chosen at random, meaning there were just as many of the "hard cases" and "people that have no interest in being there" as there were in the aa groups.

as far as cults go, i dont think hes comparing outcomes, rather the techniques involved in recruiting and keeping members.

Haawhat, this is typical propaganda, a few facts, lots of omissions, and a whole bunch of BS. I read quite a bit and the link that you had for instance had zero quotes from Dr. GE Valliant, just phrases like "in other words..." which is BS. Also where it was covienent, he down played higher numbers for AA as comparable, and visa versa. It's crap and doesn't add up.

There was also no admission or delineation for the court mandated attendies. Also no data for long term sobriety outside of AA. Where's the data for sobriety of 10,20,30...50 year sober indiviuals outside of AA? There isn't any, you know why because most of the people that got sober on "their own" didn't stay sober, and the one's that did probably weren't alcoholics.

We have people that come to AA and figure out that they aren't alcoholics.

It happens. They're people who get caught up in heavy drinking thru association (such as college students) that quit and start associating with a different group. They don't seem to have the deeply seeded personal problems that Alcoholics have, that drive them to continue drinking.

Also missing is the demographics of those in all groups that stayed sober. Most of the people that I've gotten sober with are successful either business owners or professionals. Not saying that everybody is but if myself and a couple dozen others that I am friends with are easily in the top 5% of the population economically, it might be something to look at. I'd say the earning capacity is above average. When I entered AA my net worth was less than the 0 now it's approaching $2 mil. Let me know if there's something wrong with that. I probably attend 10 meetings a year and voluntarily contribute the average $1 per meeting. If I didn't ride my motorcycle to the meetings, I'd spend more on gas getting there.

Btw here's something that Orange does not mention at all because it would

contradict most of his prevarications. The 12 Traditions of AA. These provide simple guidence to AA groups. There is no big stucture, there are just individual groups of 15 - 30 people on average. The dollar that most people give at a meeting, barely covers the rent and coffee. Most of the meetings are held at church auxilary rooms that the group pays rent for, even if the church offers the room at no charge, the groups insist on paying rent so there is no affiliation. The groups never endorses that church (or any other) in any way.

AA Traditions

1. Our common welfare should come first; personal recovery depends upon A.A. unity.

2. For our group purpose there is but one ultimate authority - a loving God as He may express Himself in our group conscience. Our leaders are but trusted servants; they do not govern.

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

4. Each group should be autonomous except in matters affecting other groups or A.A. as a whole.

5. Each group has but one primary purpose-to carry its message to the alcoholic who still suffers.

6. An A.A. group ought never endorse, finance

or lend the A.A. name to any related facility or outside enterprise, lest problems of money, property and prestige divert us from our primary purpose.

7. Every A.A. group ought to be fully self-supporting, declining outside contributions.

8. Alcoholics Anonymous should remain forever nonprofessional, but our service centers may employ special workers.

9. A.A., as such, ought never be organized; but we may create service boards or committees directly responsible to those they serve.

10. Alcoholics Anonymous has no opinion on outside issues; hence the A.A. name ought never be drawn into public controversy.

11. Our public relations policy is based on attraction rather than promotion; we need always maintain personal anonymity at the level of press, radio and films.

12. Anonymity is the spiritual foundation of all our traditions, ever reminding us to place principles before personalities.

The biggest BS with the orange papers, is that it's trying to convience the reader that AA is a religeous cult. Nothing could be further from the truth. But it's the most fantastic and incredible allegation that Orange could try to pull over on his audience. It's also the most flagrent indicator that he full of **** and has credibility. It's obvious that he has a personal vendetta, a score to settle. Maybe he attended meetings, fell for a girl, he got drunk and the girl gave him the hook so instead of blaming himself, he blames AA. That's what alcoholics do, blame other people for their problems. There is no other reason, for him, to try as hard as he is to propagate his hyperbole. It's total garbage.

And tell me this, how can you have a religeous cult without a divine figure, a controlling organization, a hirearchy of leaders, membership requirements, rules, structure, fear based brainwashing to keep members from leaving (95% leave right?), separating the members from their families, recruitment, and most importantly the harvesting of wealth? There are no dues or fees in AA. You could attend as many meeting as you'd like and never give any contributions and nothing would ever be said. There is no money trail to follow. I've been a "Treasurer" of a meeting for a few groups. At the end of the year, after paying rent and coffee, we had like $100 left. $50 went to the local intergroup office to rent a place and a few phones for volunteers (2) to answer phone calls when people needed help and wanted to know where a meeting was. And the other $50 went the office in NY where they print books and literature at cost. Where's the beef?

[haawhat]

Dean,

i dont personaly have a beef with aa. ive been looking at my drinking problems and was searching for alternatives to religious based solutions when i came across this website. my experience with aa is limited to less than 10 meetings in only 2 different groups steming from court mandated attendance. i didnt like attending the meetings and felt uncomfortable while there but nothing negative happened to me.

the direct qoutes from valliant are clearly shown in bold print on the page. as far as the "played down numbers," im not sure exactly what youre referring to.

the book is written by a member of AAs board of trustees who, in the conclusion of the study, did not find "whether court mandated attendies" was important to his findings. however, he did state that:

Table 8.1 shows our treatment results. After initial discharge, only five patients in the Clinic sample never relapsed to alcoholic drinking, and there is compelling evidence that the results of our treatment were no better than the natural history of the disease.

for long term studies of spontaneous remission there are these:

Spontaneous Remission in Alcoholism

A number of studies have found that a small percentage of alcoholics improve to the point of remission of problems associated with alcohol consumption. Bailey and Stewart (235) interviewed alcoholics after three years without treatment and found that about 27 percent of the former patients denied alcoholism. Cahalan (268) in a national drinking practices study noted that drinking problems decrease in men after age 50 and the amount of alcohol consumed also decreases. Cahalan, Cisin, and Crossley (11) in another national survey of drinking practices found that about one-third more individuals had problem drinking in a period before their three-year study period than during the study period itself, suggesting a tendency toward spontaneous remission of drinking problems. Goodwin, Crane, and Guze (269) found that on an eight-year follow-up with no treatment about 18 percent of the alcoholic felons had been abstinent for at least two years. Lemere (238) reported long-term abstinence in 11 percent of untreated alcoholics over an unspecified interval. Kendall and Staton (236) reported 15 percent abstinence in untreated alcoholics after a seven-year follow-up. Kissin, Platz, and Su (203) reported a 4 percent one-year improvement rate in untreated lower class alcoholics. Imber et al. (10) described a follow-up of 58 alcoholics who received no treatment for their alcoholism. It was noted that the rate of abstinence was 15 percent at one year and 11 percent after three years.

In sum, the preponderance of these studies suggests that a spontaneous remission rate for alcoholism of at least one-year duration is about 4-18 percent.

Successful treatment would, therefore, have to produce rates of improvement significantly above this probable range of spontaneous remission.

10. Imber, S., Schultz, E., Funderburk, F., Allen, R. and Flamer, R. The Fate of the Untreated Alcoholic.

J. Nerv and Ment. Dis.

, 1976, 162:238-247.

11. Cahalan, D., Cisin, I. H. and Crossley, H. M.

American Drinking Practices: A National Survey of Drinking Behavior and Attitudes

. New Brunswick, Rutgers Center for Alcohol Studies, 1974.

203. Kissin, B., Platz, A. and Su, W. H. Social and Psychological Factors in the Treatment of Chronic Alcoholics.

J. Psychiat. Res.

, 1970, 8:13-27.

235. Bailey, M. B. and Stewart, S. Normal Drinking by Persons Reporting Previous Problem Drinking.

Quart. J. Stud. Alc.

, 1967, 28:305-315.

236. Kendall, R. E. and Staton, M. C. The Fate of Untreated Alcoholics.

Quart. J. Stud. Alc.

, 1966, 27:30-41.

238. Lemere, F. What Happens to Alcoholics.

Amer. J. Psychiat.

, 1953, 109:674-675.

268. Cahalan, D.

Problem Drinkers: A National Survey

, San Francisco, Jossey-Bass, 1970.

269. Goodwin, W. W., Crane, J. B., and Guze, S. B. Felons Who Drink: An Eight-Year Follow-up.

Quart. J. Stud. Alc.

, 1971, 32:136-147.

The Clinical Management of Alcoholism

, Sheldon Zimberg, M.D., page 179, footnotes on pages 223 to 234.

and finally, here is his response to the twelve traditions:

http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-traditions.html

[DeanCollins]

Haawhat, if you want to believe this nonsense, it's a free country have at it. Thanks for being honest about your personal situation, it makes sense why you would be interested in this, but i don't see his point or yours. Anyone can interpret data and skew it toward their intended purpose especially as dishonest as mr. orange is. So the guy says AA is useless, well there's 10 million people worldwide that disagree. If you had terminal cancer and a doctor said that a lot of people die from this disease but there is a treatment that doesn't cost much, is right around the corner and 5% of the people who try it live, you'd be all over it. The trouble with this disease (for those that really have it) is that it's progressive and it never gets better only worse. And it's the only disease that tells you that You don't have it.

It's unfortunate that you had been mandated by the court to attend, (I hit that one on the head) and subsequently didn't like it, instead of deciding to go on your own. None of us like being told what to do, and really that's what people come to realize about AA, after they get over themselves and being in a new situation, that it's a place with no rules (suggestions yes) and no one telling you what to do. "There is no easier softer way".

Good luck with managing the drinking, let us know how it goes.

And about the 19 that had to leave, so that I can stay sober, don't let the door hit you on the way out :laugh:

[haawhat]

my point is our country has embraced the idea of AA and 12 step programs as pretty much the only means to treat problems that few people want to talk about, yet these problems have an enormous negative impact on most parts of society and there is little to no evidence of these programs success. (sorry for the run-on)

i guess i was hoping for a discussion on these twelve steps that on the surface seem like a non-offensive, all inclusive, spiritual guide to self discovery and inner-strength, and which to me seems to fall apart upon closer inspection.(i think that was another one)

all this to say i knew there would be long-time AA members here who i would not convince at all and this obviously includes you. at any rate i dont mean to offend, and i do appreciate the support with my struggles. and if youre serious i will give updates, though unless its exciting or some others really want to hear about it, ill probably just pm you.

[DeanCollins]

my point is our country has embraced the idea of AA and 12 step programs as pretty much the only means to treat problems that few people want to talk about, yet these problems have an enormous negative impact on most parts of society and there is little to no evidence of these programs success. (sorry for the run-on)

i guess i was hoping for a discussion on these twelve steps that on the surface seem like a non-offensive, all inclusive, spiritual guide to self discovery and inner-strength, and which to me seems to fall apart upon closer inspection.(i think that was another one)

all this to say i knew there would be long-time AA members here who i would not convince at all and this obviously includes you. at any rate i dont mean to offend, and i do appreciate the support with my struggles. and if youre serious i will give updates, though unless its exciting or some others really want to hear about it, ill probably just pm you.

haawhat, the discussion can begin anytime, why don't you start with explaining the "enormous negative impact" and how the 12 steps "fall apart upon closer inspection" based on what you know about it. If you're looking at articles for information, such as the orange papers, and you see

gross exagerations, and ridiculous analogies, you have to consider the source and the motives that the writer has. What orange doesn't realize, becasue his is so intellectually dishonest, is that as soon as someone realizes that some of what he's saying is total bs, then he loses all credibility. If you want to read more like this try the american sociallist party, or some anti goverment militia groups propaganda, it's free entertainment.

What was not said in these numbers, that were about the people who didn't work the program and left AA (like yourself) was the statistics of those members that didn't leave. 36% have more than 10 years sober, 14% have 5-10 years, 24% have 1-5 years, and 26% have less than a year.

Keeping data on those that left, is like keeping statisics on those who flunked out of college and blaming the college for their failure because they didn't do the work. Most people don't want to write a 4th step inventory and then tell someone about it, but that's what separates the winner from the also rans and dnf's.

AA also never claimed to be the only way to get relief from alcoholism and it never imposed itself on society, society imposed AA by making it some sort of defacto arm of the court. They have a open door policy, but understand that when someone comes in with court papers to get signed, you'll never see them again. Every onece in awhile I'll he someone in a meeting talk about how the court sent them, they left and drank for 10 more years, and then when their slot machine hit triple zeros and had lost the job, family, the home, done a couple stays at the iron bar hotel they were willing to listen.

That's the problem, in the old days, when people brought themselves to an AA meeting, they were at the end of the line and willing to do the work. Today most people that walk in arent' ready to quit drinking and work on their problems. Btw I was 16 the first time I went to a meeting, 18 the second time. At 27 I came back and had the desire to stay, went to meetings and struggled for the next 2 years and finally got sober at 29. So I contributed to the negative statistics myself.

[McMetal]

McMetal, would you like to elaborate about "LOT of problems"? The problems are the with the people.

What I don't get is the haters. AA is non profit, no fees, doesn't advertise, doesn't recruit, follows no religeous doctrine, has no rules... what's to complain about?

Well first, there's no need to be defensive because if the program has worked for you that is wonderful and you should be proud of your success.

I am reluctant to paraphrase what others have written far more eloquently than I, but here are two examples.

First, although there may not be a strict denominational affiliation, religion is a key aspect of the 12 step program. You're encouraged to admit that you have no control over your own life and must trust in a "higher power". Well, lots of people simply don't believe in God, a higher power or anything like that. To acknowledge that you have no control over your own life simply feeds the sense of helplessness that is the heart of EVERY addiction. It is not empowering.

Second, counting days of sobriety is not an effective practice. If someone slips they go all the way back to zero, implying that all the hard work and effort they have put in previously was wasted. A better approach would be to celebrate success rather than focus on failure.

I stated those points rather clumsily, so take them with a grain of salt. I think a good metaphor is dieting. Lots of people want to lose weight, just as lots of people struggle with addictions. There are many diets, many paths to achieving your goals. One method is not right for everyone. If you lost a lot of weight with Weight Watchers, that is great. But that plan may not be for everyone.

[tryfuhl]

My father was brutally murdered in January while on a relapse after 6 years clean (2 young guys beat him to death after an argument). I had seen him help countless people with their issues, being a leader in his local AA and NA chapters, and met a lot of people I'd never known, nor even heard of, speak about how he turned their lives around through the program, so I'm a pretty firm believer that it is doing no harm.

There's no one way to fix an addiction problem and for some people the best way that they've found seems to be through these programs. Guess it didn't work fully for him, but it probably kept him sober for a lot longer than he would've been otherwise.

[DeanCollins]

Well first, there's no need to be defensive because if the program has worked for you that is wonderful and you should be proud of your success.

I am reluctant to paraphrase what others have written far more eloquently than I, but here are two examples.

First, although there may not be a strict denominational affiliation, religion is a key aspect of the 12 step program. You're encouraged to admit that you have no control over your own life and must trust in a "higher power". Well, lots of people simply don't believe in God, a higher power or anything like that. To acknowledge that you have no control over your own life simply feeds the sense of helplessness that is the heart of EVERY addiction. It is not empowering.

Second, counting days of sobriety is not an effective practice. If someone slips they go all the way back to zero, implying that all the hard work and effort they have put in previously was wasted. A better approach would be to celebrate success rather than focus on failure.

I stated those points rather clumsily, so take them with a grain of salt. I think a good metaphor is dieting. Lots of people want to lose weight, just as lots of people struggle with addictions. There are many diets, many paths to achieving your goals. One method is not right for everyone. If you lost a lot of weight with Weight Watchers, that is great. But that plan may not be for everyone.

McMetal, you need to gets your facts straight, there is no religious practice, "higher power of your own understanding" is the Suggested term, and even that can be anything (the sun, moon, earth, your motorcycle, a plant, your mother in law...whatever). The main reason behind it is so that the individual realizes that They are not God and that the world doesn't revolve around them. (self centeredness) I think our resident bible thumpers will agree that this is no kind of religion :laugh:. There are a good number of athiests in AA doing just fine. The is no stigma about it, it's personal and private, people do as they please and no one ever questions "your program". It's just like ES, anonymous, you can read or listen, come and go as you please, talk (write) or not, no fees,

nobody need know you or talk to you at all, it's all up to you, and you can leave anytime you want. Meetings end people leave, some come back, no big deal. If you like it- good, if you don't- seeya. So where's the problem? Btw are you calling what orange wrote "eloquent"? :laugh:.

As far as the "no control" issue goes, if you can control your drinking(the attendee) then why are you visiting AA? It's not a place for people who want to cut down on their drinking, or had a little mishap at the company christmas party, or thier first DUI. That's the problem. If people aren't ready (having tried many many times and other methods on their own) then they shouldn't be going to AA. Now after you've crashed a few cars, gone to jail a few times, tried the kill yourself a couple times, lost jobs, laid around in a pysch ward, family wants nothing to do with you, had a banckrupcy and a couple divorces, homeless sleeping on your buddy the junky's coach.... then you might be ready to do something differently.

It's like people with eating disorders that are obeese. They probably aren't going to accept personal responsibility and work hard at changing their lifestyle until the serious medical problems arrive. Like alcohol, the food isn't the problem, and eating it isn't the problem. It's the underlying personal issues and behaviors that's the problem. But our society expects the magic bullet, the pill, the easy way that requires no effort, no change in lifestyle, work, effort. Well good luck with that if you're a advanced alcoholic or drug addict. When you've met the grim reaper, the Jailer, or the Dr. tells you that your next drunk will be your last, there is a group of people that have been there, done that, and are living a great life now.

[Mooka]

Can addicts really do it their own way?

... :paranoid:

[McMetal]

McMetal, you need to gets your facts straight, there is no religious practice, "higher power of your own understanding" is the Suggested term, and even that can be anything (the sun, moon, earth, your motorcycle, a plant, your mother in law...whatever). Btw are you calling what orange wrote "eloquent"? :laugh:.

As far as the "no control" issue goes, if you can control your drinking(the attendee) then why are you visiting AA?

1. I freely admit to not being an expert on AA, and even qualified my remark by saying that I was paraphrasing, and poorly at that. The author I am reading makes a much more convincing argument. I should have deferred posting again without the words in front of me.

2. I don't know who "orange" is or what you are talking about. I was referring to the doctor who wrote the book I am currently reading about addiction, which is the best thing I have ever read on the subject.

3. Having control over your own life is not the same as controlling your drinking.

Last post on this subject until I can quote the original text with confidence.

I don't understand why people are getting bent out of shape about this.

[PokerPacker]

1. I freely admit to not being an expert on AA, and even qualified my remark by saying that I was paraphrasing, and poorly at that. The author I am reading makes a much more convincing argument. I should have deferred posting again without the words in front of me.

2. I don't know who "orange" is or what you are talking about. I was referring to the doctor who wrote the book I am currently reading about addiction, which is the best thing I have ever read on the subject.

3. Having control over your own life is not the same as controlling your drinking.

Last post on this subject until I can quote the original text with confidence.

I don't understand why people are getting bent out of shape about this.

people don't like when their religion--i mean "higher power"-- is attacked.