Mainstream article addresses failure of treatment

Submitted by Imaginos on Sun, 07/31/2011 - 11:57

Forums:

http://www.dailyrecord.com/article/20110731/NJNEWS/307310018/1005/rss

Some key quotes about her treatment :

"The halfway house in Freehold scares Dana Reisman. Her roommate has parties. The supervisor isn’t around at night. The drugs she’s supposed to stay away from are there."

Drugs in a halfway house?

"But Dana’s problems were escalating at the halfway house, said Jack Hughes, Farinick’s boyfriend and a father figure to Dana.

Once again, rehab was failing her. A half dozen tries, and Dana was stuck in that cycle of addiction, treatment and relapse that afflicts tens of thouands of people in their teens and 20s in New Jersey and hundreds of thousands nationwide.

Then, the other shoe dropped.

“Dana got pregnant,” Farinick said. “While she was at the halfway house.”

I really wish I could be surprised by this.

Veteran rehab specialists bandy about success rates, which range from as low as 7 percent or 8 percent to as high as 20-odd percent. Private centers don’t publish statistics and publicly funded ones say they do not have the money to conduct the research.

An actual admission that the treatment system doesn't work, and relies on made up numbers.

And finally a cold reminder of the costs of this fialed approach

Dana Reisman, who would have turned 23 on Aug. 24, was dead of a heroin overdose.

flannigan

Sun, 07/31/2011 - 12:58

Unfortunately, this is more the rule than the exception in rehabs. And if they don't keep statistics on "success" rates, how would they know if their treatment modality works or not? I fear that most rehabs measure their "success" in $$$, not lives saved. Just my opinion.

tristam (not verified)

Mon, 08/01/2011 - 15:22

The problem is that many do keep track of their success rates. And they often appear high. However, if you get down to it, the true success rate isn't very high.

In the few I've worked at, the success rate was measured by the number of clients who "completed" or "graduated" the program. Other than that, no data was taken. No follow-up information was taken 3 or 6 months, or even 1 year, after the client completed the program. It all was considered "successful" because they completed the program. However, when some of us actually decided to do follow-ups, we found that most of the ones that completed the program relapsed very soon after completing the program.

In short, many of them do collect data, but the way they gather data is faulty. It easily skews the stats. And of that data, it shows a high success rate, but in reality, it's a lot lower.

Jesus-is-Fraud's picture

Jesus-is-Fraud

Tue, 08/02/2011 - 06:36

How are you supposed to keep stats on feral junkies and piss heads?

They move house more than I move my bowels.

And appointments? Sorry mate - gotta score.

I don't think it's a case of "hidden agendas" - it's a case of keeping track of crazies who either are unmanageable or who don't want to be kept tabs on, really is too hard and it's not the place of rehab staff to be tracking down EX patients, no more than it is for the staff of holiday resorts to be keeping intimate tabs on people who came there for a few weeks etc.

The only reason most of them ever get in contact again - is for another round of detoxing or what ever.

I don't think it's a sinister motive of the rehab system...

I think it's the practical realities of running most detoxes. Then there is the legally touchy area of privacy - and unless the EX patients consent to being kept in contact with, AND they are actually able to be kept in contact with - I think they would be pushing shit up hill even with this narrow means to build stats on.

tristam (not verified)

Wed, 08/03/2011 - 15:34

How to keep track of feral junkies and such? If you can't contact them, you can't get updated info. Plain and simple. That skews the results more. It is really hard. However, many long-term places are required to do follow-ups on their patients in order to report the data. This is, in many cases, in regards to their grant programs (your tax dollars at work--paying for AA based programs which don't work!). Again, the data is hard to get and it's skewed big time. Especially when you get an AA based program that shows repeatedly over and over again that AA based programs don't work. Then, the programs actually do what I mentioned--they report success rates based off who completed the program, not who is still sober.

istj04

Sun, 07/31/2011 - 17:41

Ever notice the term "half-way house" seems to indicate its gonna have AT LEAST a 50% failure rate, because the people who inhabit them, are only HALFWAY committed to remaining sober! Throw in the fact that most (if not ALL!) of these places require 12-Step meeting attendance, and the "FULL-WAY" to relapse, is insured before the resident even shows up!

tristam (not verified)

Mon, 08/01/2011 - 15:25

I would disagree. Many addicts and alcoholics are very committed to remaining sober. It's just that they weren't properly taught how to get over their addiction. Throw an addict and alcoholic out in the wild (which includes half-way houses) with nothing but cult indoctrination, you can see why the majority relapse in no time.

istj04

Mon, 08/01/2011 - 21:35

So Tristam, do you think that a NON-12-Step "halfway house" would work for a resident who isn't "over their addiction" or not?? Even if 12-Steppism was vaporized off the planet tomorrow (Hey, I can DREAM can't I? ;), do you think that people WITHOUT 12-Step indoctrination would STILL relapse, due to not quite being "over" their addiction?

tristam (not verified)

Wed, 08/03/2011 - 15:53

I wouldn't say that it won't work if the person isn't over their addiction. If anything, I don't think any addict is "truly" over their addiction even when they are recovered. I should've mentioned that in my previous post (my bad). Can a relapse happen even with proper education (not 12-step base?) Sure, it can happen, even if the person is over their addiction. Ask many recovered addicts who went back and had a slight lapse when they used it temporarily as a coping resource. People slip. It's part of being human. What matters is how committed they are to stopping for good, and what are they willing to do to no longer go back to that. That includes dealing with any of the aftereffects. I've seen many go back to alcohol use because they couldn't stand the insomnia that alcohol helped them not experience.

Also, as far as half-way houses--I don't think they're really a good idea in the first place, whether 12-step based or not. I can see the reasoning, but from what I've always observed, it always seemed to be a place where the alcoholics and addicts go in order to not be homeless for awhile until their families let them back into their life. Then only to relapse. I would like to see how a non 12-step based half-way house will change that.

Finally, can I share on your dream?

aasux

Tue, 08/02/2011 - 03:29

Addicts committed to sobriety don't need rehab or halfway houses. They quit, independent of, (or rather despite) the 12 step indoctrination they have been force fed. halfway houses are just pit stops for relapse hence more profit for rehab and help propagate the endless cycle of the false "disease" and powerlessness that is instilled. Those who decide to stop do so without fanfare or press. I am proud to be in that group.

tristam (not verified)

Wed, 08/03/2011 - 15:59

Not necessarily. I've met plenty of committed addicts who relapsed. What did they do wrong? Variety of reasons. One of the most common is that they didn't use their new-found coping mechanisms to cope with the aftereffects of their addiction. Instead, they went back to using drugs to cope with reality. As an example, their wife nagged and nagged, they couldn't stand it any longer, so they used to cope instead of thinking of something else.

And I won't disagree with you--there are many recovered addicts who quit without going through any treatment. I'm glad, they don't have to go through wasting any money on going through the loops. And I do heavily agree with your half-way house comment. Addiction isn't a disease, it's a behavior. Behavior can be modified. If anything, they're powerful, not powerless.

Also, congrats on being in the winning group.

Persephone In Exile's picture

Persephone In Exile

Thu, 10/27/2011 - 18:33

I think you're forgetting certain external pressures here. Some younger adults are told they MUST comply with both treatment and a sober living house of some variety. Some spouses are also told they must "prove their commitment to their sobriety". We all know stories of people forced into the meetings cycle, it's really just as bad with TCs and sober houses, or at least the pressure is increased when the stakes are raised to such demands.

http://badrecovery.blogspot.com/

marietta davis's picture

marietta davis

Thu, 10/27/2011 - 20:38

What does being a "younger adult" have to do with anything? If a person is soured on a demand to comply with behaviors or financial investments they are unable or unwilling to make, why don't they refuse? I'm not talking about involuntary commitment - I mean anyone who has tried any program s/he thinks is a waste of resources. After all, everything in life is a choice, right? We all have the right and the responsibility to say no in that case, don't we?

Don't tell me these people are powerless!

Persephone In Exile's picture

Persephone In Exile

Thu, 10/27/2011 - 21:26

Um, who's the "we" here, Marietta? There should be another option considered acceptable to families, employers, etc. when they put the pressure on someone to either lose their home, all money, custody of children, marriages, etc. than this system. Period.

That's the point. There's no "choice" in the matter. It's 12 step bullshit programs or get tossed to the curb for some people. What, you didn't meet in your treatment many in the younger category whose families had been talked into "forcing a bottom"? Trying "tough love"? Then saw their kids die while those who advised them (while claiming to be experts) backed away from any responsibility hiding in the "they couldn't beat the *disease*" crap?

I know you're just here to argue, but entertain the possibility at least that families needn't lose their children in a system that claims to be able to help. If nothing else, you helped me illustrate my point further. So thanks.

http://badrecovery.blogspot.com/

marietta davis's picture

marietta davis

Thu, 10/27/2011 - 22:47

" We all have the right and the responsibility to say no in that case, don't we?" Is this what you're inquiring about?

I don't think it's difficult to understand, but I will try to explain it. "We" is a word used by a speaker to refer to himself or herself and one or more other people considered together - in this case, all human beings, regardless of station, politics, religion, sex, etc. We all have the right to refuse treatment of any kind unless we are being forcibly committed - and even then it might be questioned whether the commitment is prudent.

You mention "this system". If you are disenchanted with it then advocate for alternatives. Not just on an internet forum, but actively and personally, in your community, your region, your state.

It is often mentioned on this forum that drinking and/or drugging is a choice. If a person loses his/her home, money, custody or marriage solely because he/she chooses to drink or drug rather than be responsible, then those unfortunate events would be called natural or logical consequences.

Natural Consequences
These are the inevitable result of an alcoholic's or addict's own actions. For example, despite marietta's strong recommendation that Brett often wash his hands during cold and flu season, Brett fails to do so. The natural result is that Brett catches a cold. This result is a direct consequence of a choice Brett made. Natural consequences are:

The responsibility of the alcoholic/addict — Brett decided he couldn't be bothered to continually wash his hands.
This consequence was not administered by marietta. Brett was careless about hygiene and caught cold of his own volition.

Logical Consequences
Logical consequences happen as a result of an alcoholics/addict's action, but are imposed by a concerned party, such as a friend or employer. For example, Brett's boss gives him an ultimatum: either Brett quits boozing or he will get his pink slip. Brett instead chooses to go to the liquor store and buys two quarts of vodka and drinks one of them in his car before walking into work. The logical consequence for Brett is he gets shit canned from his job. Logical consequences are most useful when an alcoholic's/addict's action could result in harm to himself or others. It is important to make sure that logical consequences are reasonable and related to the problem, and to let both the drunk and the boss keep whatever self respect remains.

So you see, Brett has plenty of choice. Unless, of course, you think alcoholism and addiction are really diseases. If they are diseases, if the possibility exists that human obsession and compulsion can trump a person's best intentions, then the behaviors of the drunk and addict should be considered with some measure of compassion. I do not disagree with you that alternatives to AA should be on the table. I do, however, believe that there is a duality in this victim/volunteer argument on this forum.

If there's a choice then the drunk or addict is not a victim who deserves compassion and empathy. If it's a choice, then he managed to fuck up his life all by himself and he is not the goddamn victim of some disease.

If there is no choice, as you assert above, and these destitute persons are truly suffering with an obsession about their drug of choice and an overwhelming desire to use it, then that sounds like circumstances beyond their control. It sounds, at the very least, like they are sick and they need to be able to avail themselves of an array of resources to get well. Please note that I did not say they have a disease. Sickness is simply a state of being ill; a disease is a disorder of structure or function, especially one that produces specific signs or symptoms or that affects a specific location. For purposes of this discussion I believe "sickness", rather than "disease", describes the condition which brings the alcoholic or addict to his knees, to the point where all is lost. These people would not be subject to the whims of "the system" if they hadn't first drawn attention to themselves. How did they get here? Did they deliberately choose willful misconduct (in which case they should "man up" and suffer the penalties) or are they sick (in which case they deserve compassion, empathy and quality help)?

"What, you didn't meet in your treatment many in the younger category whose families had been talked into "forcing a bottom"? Trying "tough love"? Then saw their kids die while those who advised them (while claiming to be experts) backed away from any responsibility hiding in the "they couldn't beat the *disease*" crap?"

No, I never met encountered any person or family trying to "force a bottom" on someone.
No, I never encountered "tough love" in action, with the exception of one single mother I knew who was trying that tactic on her delinquent 15-year-old daughter who was not, by the way, a drunk or addict.
The only addicts I ever saw die did so without ever being involved in any treatment of any kind. Not one of them was a member of AA or NA.

Hope that clears up my viewpoint.

Persephone In Exile's picture

Persephone In Exile

Sat, 10/29/2011 - 08:45

No, just proved that you miss the point every time.

http://badrecovery.blogspot.com/

marietta davis's picture

marietta davis

Sat, 10/29/2011 - 12:03

I ask you to clarify your question and you will not. I respond to your remarks without the clarification and you chastise me for missing your point.

What a brat.

murf's picture

murf

Sat, 10/29/2011 - 12:54

Don't worry, Marietta. Third party readers can tell who's being expressive and who's being intentionally obtuse. Carry on.

Persephone In Exile's picture

Persephone In Exile

Sat, 10/29/2011 - 13:51

All due respect, but you're the one on the forum for a site you seem to hate here just to cause trouble.

OK, fine, re: this statement which you base much of your arguments on:

"If there's a choice then the drunk or addict is not a victim who deserves compassion and empathy. If it's a choice, then he managed to fuck up his life all by himself and he is not the goddamn victim of some disease."

This ignores the social factors involved as if we are all free agents existing alone with no influence by the rest of humanity around us, which is false. I'm not the sort of person who feels that people don't deserve empathy or help even if they DO fuck up their own lives, and certainly not if it's with chemicals that were abused (or just used) in the context of socially acceptable gatherings. In any case, that's not applicable to kids whose parents have just been talked into ideas that are based in fear and that they must make a young adult take part in a frequently abusive system--or else not go to college, not have a place to live, not have a car, etc.

This is nothing more than preying on the fears of families in a society where family and community bonds are significantly weakened already by people who stand to gain financially from the acting on of these implanted fears. As for people who HAVE fucked up and want to get well, you really think they should have no choice other than the paltry services available? That's apparently your view, and you're welcome to it, but I doubt you'll have much left to yell about when other options are made available to the public. It's a profitable industry, and already people are finding out that they can make money by marketing alternative centers to the 12 step ones, they're just currently few and far between.

You have every right to have no empathy for others based on your views of how humans should act & react. Not disputing that. But IMHO that view has no place in treatment centers or court ordered treatment of any kind, and as you're not a judge nor able to actually force your views on anyone I'm not particularly worried about your views.

http://badrecovery.blogspot.com/

billybudd

Sat, 10/29/2011 - 14:14

"... when other options are made available to the public. It's a profitable industry, and already people are finding out that they can make money by marketing alternative centers to the 12 step ones ..."

Is this what all the fuss and bother concerning AA revolves around; making $$$ of substance abuse fuck-ups?

Is the appeal for empathy about the plight of capitalists getting elbowed out of the market by a no-cost program?

I hate being so cynical, but that's what the complaint of anti-AAs seems to boil down.

Persephone In Exile's picture

Persephone In Exile

Sat, 10/29/2011 - 18:49

Actually, that's not my point or angle, it's just a fact of our success based economy, because millions (if not more) are being made currently by the centers people are sent to, which are majority 12 step based. "No cost program"? Oh, please.

You really think people who need detox are all "fuck-ups"? Seriously? If that is your view, where should these "fuck-ups" then go? This is one of the biggest problems with AA, that it isn't just some free program for people who drink too much. It's now the de facto treatment for any addiction problems in the US, real or imagined. If a correction in terms of the market can reverse that it would be really no different than the extremely profitable industry already in place, but a bit more choice would be appreciated.

http://badrecovery.blogspot.com/

Persephone In Exile's picture

Persephone In Exile

Sat, 10/29/2011 - 19:34

One other point, it's not always that they're making huge profits, it's the abuses from the promotion of fear to the general public through the idea that anyone using any substance is bound to end up dead of a heroin OD if they don't get immediate treatment. The cliche of teens sent to treatment (or AA/NA) for getting caught drinking or discovery of minimal use of weed is a cliche for a reason. Many in xA also see this as a problem, I might add, due to minimizing people who do just have a problem and aren't simply partying with their friends.

http://badrecovery.blogspot.com/

billybudd

Sat, 10/29/2011 - 20:24

>"You really think people who need detox are all "fuck-ups"? "

No. The term, while inelegant, connotes attitudes of "success based economy" players, of teen-doobie-tokers' guardians, and of many members of this board with respect to "people who need"; perhaps "failures" is more accurate for those who can't manage to abstain without help.

>"It's now the de facto treatment for any addiction problems in the US"

However its origin, its basic mission, and its greatest bang for the buck are because it's free. That the for-profit treatment industry which adopted AA's program is the very market from which you expect succor is ironic. Markets won't slaughter that cash cow without a more lucrative beast to take its place. Still, AA proper forbids itself outside affiliations. AA can't help assimilation.

>"it's the abuses from the promotion of fear to the general public"

Welcome to America. Where you been all your life?

Persephone In Exile's picture

Persephone In Exile

Sat, 10/29/2011 - 21:30

Do you seriously have a problem with people not wanting AA dogma shoved down their throats? If not, why the fuss, if so, why are you here? I'm honestly asking, I don't know if you're part of this e-aa backlash wave or not. I'm finally curious.

I want change, as do plenty of people. That is not so much to ask. As for expecting anything from that market or the current centers, no, they've rather taught me not to expect too much.

http://badrecovery.blogspot.com/

marietta davis's picture

marietta davis

Sat, 10/29/2011 - 23:07

I have a problem with anyone shoving any dogma down someone's throat. But when someone becomes disenchanted with dogma which is being forced upon him, there is a way to adopt alternate avenues of thought, of logic and theory, of lifestyle without demonizing that which he chooses to abandon. I am part of the e-AA backlash. E-AA is a much more regimented forum where nonsense is not tolerated. When the band of Orange Papers Forum contributors stormed e-AA they were banned before they could do very much damage; I was quite active on that forum at the time and took offense at istj04, btnben and stephanienc's mockery of friends who implement the 12 Steps in their lives and find AA helpful to their recovery process. It was very easy to find these offenders here and to confirm, at least in istj04's and btnben's case, that they are empty, with nothing to offer. The fact that I later discovered them here on OP gleefully sharing their escapades in the hopes that some of us would drink or die over their visit was mind-blowingly appalling. Anyone on the Orange Papers Forum who endorsed or endorses this behavior is complicit in this hate-motivated violation.

When I began taking a close look at this forum I found it to be nothing but a bitch session. I understand that this is not an alternative to AA. I understand that there are numerous people who feel they have been victimized by AA, by NA, by the treatment industry, by the courts, by people making decisions for them with which they do not agree. We each fall into our own experiences with these forces, and I get it that the OP posters are sick to death of all of it and are looking for a place to kvetch. But there comes a point when we look at all the griping and accusing and finger-pointing and blaming and we find that nothing is any different, no change has occurred as a result of your shining a light on the problems. I read post after post after post blaming 12 Step recovery for "damage" and "misery", yet what is anyone doing to change anything? There are threats made about taking AA to court (good fuckin luck with that!) and about how some people hold AA responsible for murders, etc. It's all nothing but talk that emanates from anger. These people are not going to court. Not one of them has a viable case. For all the ugly words I've exchanged with msafrany, at least he offers a glimpse of his life without the 12 steps. Everyone else pretty much just plays the blame game.

I want change, too, but I don't think we are supposed to ask for it. I think we are to be the architects of change. If you have a better idea, then build on it. Don't sit there waiting for someone to hand it to you. The change I would most like to see is acknowledgement that we are all entitled to choose for ourselves the best course of action when faced with adversity, such as alcoholism or addiction. I would love to see an attitude of tolerance among all sufferers, regardless of the paths they choose.

I do not chastise anyone based on his or her decision to dump the 12 steps. Drunks and addicts are not all the same, and an array of solutions would be ideal. I do find it unfortunate that so much pure rancor drives this forum. It's not for anyone's greater good to be blaming. The change you bring about for yourself can help others. Hate will just kill you, and it can kill anyone you think you're helping. That's what hate does.

Pennywise's picture

Pennywise

Sat, 10/29/2011 - 23:41

The Orange Papers forum has not been around that long. The system won't be changed overnight. But every now and then a 1st Amendment crusader like Inouye steps forward to strike a huge blow. See, the more people learn about AA, the weaker it becomes. The Orange Papers, not just the forum but the papers themselves, help spread the message.

"Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid."

marietta davis's picture

marietta davis

Sat, 10/29/2011 - 23:54

What interests me more than a group undertaking is individual participation. Much lip has been given to a "movement" or an uprising. I'm suggesting that people undertake high profile activism on their own and not wait for a group to do something. That's why I've often asked, "What are you personally doing to offer alternatives?" So far, no answers.

Ironic's picture

Ironic

Sun, 10/30/2011 - 01:11

No program needed. The alternative is the grow the fuck up and change your behavior program.

The goal is for the little light in your head to come on and stay on long enough to quit for real before you die. Honestly, whether or not you live to see it happen largely depends on the person.

Don't attack me because I'm not 22 with 5 years "sober." Everyone my age in NA was out relapsing every 30-120 days. Everyone. Some people figure it out faster than others. Having "a program" makes little difference. You always say there are good people in AA. I believe that. I also believe that there are sober assholes and good people that get high. It really is a deeply personal journey.

marietta davis's picture

marietta davis

Sun, 10/30/2011 - 03:02

I'm gonna ask you once, nicely, to abandon the "False Dichotomy" declaration. I have not presented any dichotomy. Not only that, you will not find any evidence of my attacking you in my recent post, so that needs to go away, too.

First you say there's no program needed. Then you say that the program needed is to grow the fuck up, etc. Now, is a program needed or not? You have put on the table the theory that alcoholism and drug addiction are nothing more than symptoms of a callow, undeveloped personality. So how do you explain the sophisticated works of Jack Kerouac or Truman Capote, of James Joyce or William S. Burroughs? Even the phrase "grow the fuck up and change your behavior" shows a contempt for the process, which is often rocky and complex, particularly when other conditions are present, such as depression, anxiety, liver damage. If these are your words of wisdom for those who are just beginning to have a desire to live a substance free life, then you are a blood relative of those in AA who say "Just don't drink and go to meetings." Neither is a solution. Neither considers the complexity of the problem. Both are insipid and condescending.

At age 22 I still had ten years to go before I got the message. It has no impact on me the amount of clean time you have. But I must say that the place your age really shows up is in your intolerance. The only point I'm trying to convey is that I agree there should be a multitude of choices for people when they are ready to quit killing themselves with booze and dope. But there is absolutely no excuse for broad-based judgment about the choices anyone makes. No one is entitled to sneer at another's choice, even if that choice is a 12-Step program. Yes, I see it happening here all the time, posters taking license with this, as if all 12-steppers are zombies/morons/religious fanatics/suckers/idiots/mental midgets. There is no reason for mass denigration and no one here can enter into such judgment with any authority. Why not just work for a better life and share what works rather than spewing hate?

Ironic's picture

Ironic

Sun, 10/30/2011 - 08:34

Okay, as far as the personal attack thing, you're right, you've left that out of your recent comments to me so I'll drop that and we can maintain our little truce on that.

I don't consider the "grow the fuck up" option to be a "program."

I am not intolerant about multiple choices. I'm intolerant of people being coerced into AA, and being told that it isn't religious and told that if they don't go to meetings they'll die. In rehab, the counselors all insisted that AA was the only way..so for awhile I just resigned myself to dying.

Persephone In Exile's picture

Persephone In Exile

Sun, 10/30/2011 - 13:18

I am doing something, actually. More than one something. Anything I say here gets so quickly based by (usually) you though that I mention little of it on this particular forum. The best alternative really is the amount of people clean & sober & happy without the 12 steps speaking out and giving testimony that it is all possible.

http://badrecovery.blogspot.com/

avogadno's picture

avogadno

Sun, 10/30/2011 - 08:11

That was well put. I for one admit that I do bitch and gripe about the whole system, and I notice it happens with me often here at OPF (and other places) even thought it's not really my intent. But it is helpful to let it "out". And I do that as it comes.

About accomplishing anything regarding to overall change. It is not easy! I think of myself in the infancy of my own personal development. Trying to keep that together is most important, and if bitching about it all "helps", I do it. After a while I probably won't feel the need to as much.

I have helped change some things in my area (Chicago Suburb). A microscopic bit in the scheme of things though. I planned it, and accomplished it, in a respectful matter. In other words, not "going for the throat" of 12 step. I just don't believe my feelings will get recognized going about it in a resentful “hateful” way.

I'm proud at what I've accomplished so far. I'm not exactly waiting around for someone to hand it to me, although I would like it if someone that was more prepared (with near complete emotional stability) and "connections" to get involved.

I do want to expose AA for what (I think) it is. And I also want to see different “treatments” for alcoholism and addiction available. Posting in forums, even if it's bitching and wining, does help though. I think it does. If that is all that a person is able to do at this time, that's fine. I can't and don't expect people to just jump on the activism wagon and devote their lives to this 'cause'. They will when and if they feel up to it.

You said a bit about taking AA to court. I don't see how that is going to happen right now. A lot of it is just theory. And although I personally beleive it, I'm not sure how it could be proven. I'm no lawyer, lol (far from) but there are some cases that AA could be made responsible for. At this time probably not murder, or suicide. But perhaps something along the lines of tax fraud or something. Well, anything apposing AA in the courts at this time would help shed some light on the entire mess (as I see it is).

Pro Empowerment!
Truth about AA: http://orange-papers.org/menu1.html
Expose AA: http://www.expaa.org/

Persephone In Exile's picture

Persephone In Exile

Sun, 10/30/2011 - 10:47

Good answer, my question was directed at Mr. Budd I believe, but thanks for answering.

http://badrecovery.blogspot.com/

billybudd

Sun, 10/30/2011 - 07:20

No, absolutely nothing "seriously". "Dogma shoved down their throats" unfairly evokes violent imagery. 1. Dogma goes in the ears through funnel by plunger. 2. Consigned treatment is the "blame" of the consignor, not the treatment. 3. Voluntary treatment is owed by the volunteer a fair shake.

I'm here waiting, passing the time (Godot is always late), engaging charming personalities in sparkling discourse, pretty much by chance. I found OP over a year ago while googling [AA cult] ('de omnibus dubitandum') and was reminded of the place at a brick-and-mortar meeting a few months ago by an AAer's "share". Do you object that I exist here, now?

I want love, before so I'll need to know what love is; this will require much change in me, which is possible. I can only change myself; the world won't change to accommodate me.

Persephone In Exile's picture

Persephone In Exile

Sun, 10/30/2011 - 10:49

No objections, I just was wondering what your position was. I'm only recently aware of the e-aa business.

http://badrecovery.blogspot.com/

billybudd

Sun, 10/30/2011 - 13:25

I can go to a meeting with palpable drunks should expressing difficulty with sobriety prompt it; a virtual assembly doesn't interest me. Besides, e-AA sounds like unhygienic sandbox. Also, misfits are my natural companions, so here I am; pleased to know you.

marietta davis's picture

marietta davis

Sat, 10/29/2011 - 15:27

Ah, where to start ... how about at the beginning, with that "all due respect" business. You've made it abundantly clear that you deny me any respect at all, which is fine; so let's just be up front about that.

So social factors are to blame. How about environmental factors, genetic factors, economic factors, comorbidity, and the rest of the grab bag? You see, my position is NOT that true alcoholism and addiction are a matter of willful misconduct. If you are going to jump onto the platform which explains alcoholism and addiction in terms of all possible contributory factors rather than dismissing them as a matter of "bad behavior", then you have just found yourself on my side of the fence. Horrified? Don't be.

Controversy surrounding the treatment industry and its possibility for tremendous profit aside, I don't feel that the debate about willful misconduct vs. obsession/compulsion has ever been definitively settled, and I doubt that it will be in my lifetime. We are all free agents - we come into this world alone and we will leave it alone. As we gain autonomy from our families of origin and begin to make all life decisions for ourselves we are faced with increasing responsibilities. There are many people who can safely drink, and some people who can use drugs recreationally without ever succumbing to the weight of addiction. This is where many posters on this forum and I split the sheets, because I believe there is a percentage of people who become dependent on alcohol and/or drugs to the point where they are driven to ingest or imbibe at any cost, even at the cost of their lives. I'm not talking about one wild weekend bender or an accidental overdose. I mean maintaining a level of intoxication every day, just to get through the day - not for recreational purposes, but to simply live.

When I suggest that it "is a choice" every time someone picks up a drink or a rig, I am merely echoing what most of the posters of the Orange Papers Forum appear to believe. It has also been stated here that if people want to quit, all they have to do is just quit and be done with it. But as you say, there's more to it than that. And this argument will continue as long as there are alcoholics and addicts.

I do not disagree that the treatment industry is ripe for opportunists and mismanagement. I have a friend who recently went to The Meadows in Arizona to the tune of $40,000.00 for a month. Aftercare was $5,000.00 per week. When he came home, he and his wife sent their 20-year-old daughter there because she was using heroin. Another $40K. And she hated it.

There is room for many modalitites of treatment to develop, and maybe to even pinpoint different kinds of users and abusers. I think more types of help need to be available to everyone, and that the language of removing oneself from the mental and physical hell of addiction and alcoholism should be streamlined so that the current buzzwords ("recovery", "spirituality", etc.) can be restored to their original meanings instead of being flashpoints for opponents to mock those who are learning a different way of life according to those concepts.

IF alcoholism and addiction are simply a matter of bad behavior, and that people who suffer with these, and die from these, do so simply because they choose to, then no, I have no empathy for them. That would be a matter of free will, and no one should superimpose his or her beliefs or fears onto another. But IF alcoholism and addiction are recreational use turned to obsession and compulsion due to, say, a biochemical alteration in the brain, then I have tremendous empathy for the suffering individual. So which is it, Persephone? Willful misconduct or obsession/compulsion? Are we badly behaved people or are we sick ones? (I do not mean diseased; I simply mean suffering from a malady that may need to be attended to by outside help.)

I'm not suggesting you be worried about my views. I am simply sharing them for you to consider.

Persephone In Exile's picture

Persephone In Exile

Sat, 10/29/2011 - 19:24

To be perfectly honest, Marietta, I don't endorse either view. I don't like the over-reaction of "it's all a choice! YOU did it yourself!" anymore than the model that presents people as eternally ticking bombs about to go off at any moment. I see a continuum of people with a variety of problems, some social, some age related, many linked by fear of pain and withdrawals, whether mental, physical or both, and I believe that deserves attention in some cases of medical help, as well. I don't see the ideas frequently treated as fact that people can be labeled alcoholic, addict, or even ADHD as predictive of behavior or explanatory of motive as many in the treatment industry regularly insist are true. It's rather a bit more like astrology to me, and just as credible.

It traps people unnecessarily in a false identity which can quickly become a self-fulfilling prophecy. I'm just not a black/white thinker, though. I feel extremes on both ends of the spectrum of this argument as leading to innocents falling through the cracks due to dogma. Just as big of a danger with the more libertarian minded view that it is all choice free of societal constraints and if people cannot take care of themselves they deserve what they get. I have a REALLY BIG problem with that view of the world, personally, as much as the ideas based in tyranny for people's own good somehow being justified. I espouse neither, nor do I feel taking an extreme position is needed.

If you believe, truly, that different modalities be available, then what are you arguing here for? Considering new ideas is a good thing. I'm aware that some go (for me) further in the "it's a choice" bit than I'd like, I understand that you're just angry at the what you perceive to be the standard position here, but it's just not universal. Also, if you anger people merely to provoke a reaction understand that the responses to you are just that, a reaction. Using the very tactics people here hated in the 12 step systems they left isn't going to be seen as anything other than bullying and gaslighting (because it frequently is), and you can hardly have expected different from people here.

No, I don't always feel the way everyone here does, which to me is the point. I hope that answered your questions. I'm happy debating this, just not when you're insulting everyone else on the forum, which more often than not is the case.

http://badrecovery.blogspot.com/

marietta davis's picture

marietta davis

Sat, 10/29/2011 - 21:07

Okay, then, would you be willing to identify the specific factors that are involved in the making of an alcoholic? Of an addict? You have said what you do not believe, but I didn't read much in your post about what you do believe. How should the alcoholic and addict be introduced to the act of not using and living a different way? What would your ideal be with regard to available help for both those who do not want to quit and those who feel they cannot quit?

billybudd

Sat, 10/29/2011 - 13:56

I think confusion arises because the binary option of losing one's family, etc., or going through the motions of attending AA - what normal people might called "choice" - is not actually choice but edict sent down from on high to take away one's family, etc.; that is, holding hands with strangers and mantra-like repetition of vapid slogans AND abstinence is too much to ask. Thus take the family, etc. - no choice. And "Ugh" means: 'I went to fart but accidentally shit my pants'.

Ironic's picture

Ironic

Sat, 10/29/2011 - 09:07

I still kind of want to ignore you, but obviously right now that isn't what I am doing. Ignoring you by myself won't make you go away, you are right about that.

"If they are diseases, if the possibility exists that human obsession and compulsion can trump a person's best intentions, then the behaviors of the drunk and addict should be considered with some measure of compassion."

This is not the definition of disease. Human obsession and compulsion trumping a person's best intentions does NOT equal disease.

marietta davis's picture

marietta davis

Sat, 10/29/2011 - 12:05

A small point, Ironic, but a significant one. How about this, then:

"If they are diseases, and if the possibility exists that human obsession and compulsion can trump a person's best intentions, then the behaviors of the drunk and addict should be considered with some measure of compassion."

I think you're right, and I think this modification makes more sense.

DeConstructor's picture

DeConstructor

Sun, 10/30/2011 - 08:49

Your comments assume that people 'volunteer' for the recovery thing. This is simply not the case as corporate AA admits that over 60% of newcomers are coerced. Most of the time people enter AA (or a forced AA rehab) under court order.

What you should really be asking yourself is-'What is YOUR part in this?'

Persephone In Exile's picture

Persephone In Exile

Sun, 10/30/2011 - 10:53

I think the crux of this lies in the fact that once labeled with this "disease" the parameters are used to predict future behavior--and precludes any notion of a behavioral phase of life that can be moved on from.

http://badrecovery.blogspot.com/

flannigan

Thu, 08/04/2011 - 07:17

Addicts don't "relapse" or "slip". Like most people, they make choices. If they choose to drink/drug again, they have merely changed their minds vis-a -vis their use of alcohol/drugs. There is no disease, ergo, nothing to "recover" from.

stephanienc's picture

stephanienc

Thu, 08/18/2011 - 21:08

...all of the social and cultural elements that contribute to the problem of substance abuse? I don't think it's enough to tell someone that they have to choose between a weird cult-like program and a "fuck you, you're on your own...just quit drinking" method. I think people do need help sometimes. Think about the things that our communities/governments/society could potentially do to PREVENT substance abuse problems (um, preventative healthcare? decent education?) as well as to treat them when they do occur (maybe with research and treatment modalities developed in this century?)

I remember one of the first questions I asked when I started going to meetings was why didn't AA make any effort to educate the public about how alcoholism is a "disease" or do any advocacy work for its victims. And of course they said that "AA has no opinion on outside issues." Even in my drunken stupor I knew that seemed fucked up.

avogadno's picture

avogadno

Fri, 08/19/2011 - 06:21

Yes, it is a choice as flannigan pointed out. Sometimes it feels like there is none, but ultimately we or whomever make a decision to do it or not. As you fight it, it because easier to abstain. Time helps. When I get that urge/craving I change what I am doing. I DO NOT, as a rule, entertain the thought. What got me into trouble in the past was fantasizing about how nice it would be. I let myself do that because I thought it was comforting bult ultimately It made me want it more so I stopped doing that.

Pro Empowerment!
Truth about AA: http://orange-papers.org/menu1.html
Expose AA: http://www.expaa.org/

stephanienc's picture

stephanienc

Sat, 08/20/2011 - 11:25

Every time you light a cigarette, you are making a conscious choice to do so. So why don't people just stop? Because it's hard. Really, really hard...for psychological and physical reasons. But we don't tell smokers that they have to choose to either join a cult or just rely on the force of sheer willpower to stop...there are medications, patches, support groups, hypnosis cds - a wide variety of methods, because different things work for different people. Why don't we recognize the need for more and better choices when it comes to help with other addictions?

One reason, I suspect, is something I remember reading (maybe in the Orange Papers) about why AA goes unquestioned and unchecked by society in general...it's the theory that alcoholism is something we, as a culture, don't really like to think about too much - either because we have misconceptions about it or it's just plain distasteful to us - and therefore the prevailing method of addressing alcoholism (AA) is something we don't really want to know too much about either. Sending alcoholics to secret meetings that we don't have to hear or know too much about helps us avoid thinking about something that we really NEED to think about as a society (hate to use this analogy, but it's kind of like in the early days of AIDS when it took far longer than it should have for treatments, funding, and awareness to be established because most people just didn't want to think about something so unpleasant - if you weren't gay or an IV drug user you could easily dismiss AIDS as something that happened to people because they'd done something wrong or immoral.)

Anyways.

aasux

Sat, 08/20/2011 - 14:25

yes, it's easy to just compartmentalize alcoholism if you're not alcoholic. just let em all go to aa, it'll help and they'll be outta sight, outta mind...
reality is a slap in the face. many of the self righteous pricks I've known were far more addicted to substances than I, yet I made a horrendous choice to use before going to a job where impairment could kill another person. AA wants us to see the similarities in the rooms. It's uncool to stratify people. However, reality is that I don't care if the guy flipping burgers is smoking pot on his breaks, but I might take issue if my surgeon is shooting up before my gallbladder comes out. Now put that surgeon in a meeting with that pot smoking cook and it's quickly going nowhere. Neither party gives a shit about the other one's job or life, honestly. It's all selfish motivation, as it should be. We need to take care of our shit before we solve anyone else's. Now forcing that surgeon to these meetings will do no one any good. Allowing him or her to explore sobriety and find what works is the answer. It's not recovery since there's no disease. It's empowering people with healthy coping options and letting them see the world with sober eyes. Life's not that tough or all bad on the sober side of the fence, though it took me 15 years to climb over. Now that I'm here I'm not going back, and I'm not going to a meeting, either.

DeConstructor's picture

DeConstructor

Sat, 10/29/2011 - 11:44

Society has a tendency to forget that 'tough love' and the inducement of 'rock bottoms' tends to kill a lot of people.

In the early 80's the Hinckley family was counseled by a psychatrist to practice 'tough love on their son. Eight days later John Hinckley Jr. shot the President of the United States.

The people that continue to promote this misinformation need to be held accountable.