NA/AA is bogus

[sven]

I'd like to begin by saying that I do not believe NA to be a sinister money-grabbing brain-washing cult. There are certainly many disturbed and even dangerous people in NA, but that can't be blamed on NA itself. The NA litterature provides a lot of insight on what its like to be a drug addict, which is based on experience. Also, the therapeutic value of sharing thoughts and feelings with your peers cannot be denied, so long as its done in a constructive way.
My problem with NA/AA is that it does not provide the solution/cure to the disease of addiction that it claims to. From what I've seen, it actually works quite poorly. Also, there is no (and probably cannot be) any reliable data on how well NA/AA works. Despite this the twelve step movement likes to blow its own horn and make wild, sometimes even absurd claims about its own effectiveness and membership.

A couple of days ago I met a girl I used to know back when I still went to NA. It struck me how tired, stressed and unhappy she seemed. The thing is that when I was in NA I was like that too, and everyone else it appeared. When I was in it, I stopped noticing. It was the norm. But now, after several years, it hit me hard how miserable she seemed. So I started thinking about NA again...

I'm not even sure I believe that addiction is a disease anymore. (Some drugs are obviously horribly habit-forming, but that is another matter) I have my own thesis about the nature of addiction, but that is mostly speculation at this point.
So let's look at NAs defenition of the 'disease of addiction'. NA claims that addiction is a physical, mental and spiritual disease. The use of the word 'disease' in this context is problematic, since it hints strongly at connections to medical science. The program of NA is not scientific in any way. It is a quasi-religious, quasi-psychological program.
The twelve step program is an attempt to cure this disease of addiction through spirituality. It claims that the addict is free to select whatever belief he or she wishes, but it soon becomes clear that it has to be a god that is very similar to the christian deity. Members are constantly reminded to humble themselves and to follow the tenents of NA without question or forethought. They are often reminded not to 'intellectualize' which is a typical NA misuse of a term. What they mean is that the member isn't supposed to question the program or analyze it. None of this behavior or thinking is required, but it is often repeated that if the member does not act 'correctly' he or she is more or less doomed to relapse.
One of the most disturbing things about NA is that the program is seen as infallible by core members. When a newcomer fails repeatedly, it is always because he or she didn't work hard enough, had the wrong attitude, didn't listen, didn't go to enough meetings, and so on and so forth... Ad nauseum. NA and the program is never at fault. I believe this may be because to them, the program and god are in some ways one and the same, and god must be infallible. Also, it is sometimes pointed out by NA 'apostates' that the twelve step program doesn't really change or evolve. It is still almost exactly the same as when it all began. This is very similar to other fradulent 'cures' for various diseases, like homeopathy for example. medical science and psychology are constantly reviewing themselves, moving on, evolving. This does not happen in homeopathy, or NA.

I feel that leaving NA was the best thing I've done in the last 20 years. I went from constantly relapsing and feeling like shit about myself and other people, to becoming a fairly content and very drug free person. I do have a couple of drinks now and again, but not very often. To me it no longer comes as a surprise that some statistics show that people in NA relapse more often than those who do nothing at all about their problem. Except trying to stay clean, that is.
That's right. Nothing at all is better than NA.

I think its a disgrace that society has let itself be tricked by this bogus program. Every year Swedish society wastes countless millions on ineffective twelve-step treatments. I know, since I been to them myself. It's almost comical, how poorly it works. Yet nobody questions it; even many medical professionals and social workers tell people to go to 12-step meetings without any reliable proof whatsoever that it works. I've heard its even worse in the US.

[JuliaL]

At least for some substances/activities, I'm more sympathetic to the description of addiction as disease.
There appear to be predisposing factors to becoming an addict. These are not well enough characterized to pin them to specific heritable or environmental conditions. Despite the lack of conclusive evidence, I believe they exist.
The first definition offered by Wikipedia is so broad, "A disease is an abnormal condition that affects the body of an organism. " that it is nearly useless. But if accepted, the definition of disease as "something bad" can be correctly applied to some addictions as some addictions are "something bad."
If there are actually heritable conditions which predispose one to addiction, then considering addiction to be disease in the same sense as something like cystic fibrosis is appropriate. Twin studies of alcoholism indicate that this is the case. Genetics of addiction.

I'm also unwilling to accept the claim that twelve step programs are useless. Like religion in general, they are a mixed bag of useful and harmful traits for the individual. Certainly, there are enough testimonials to their efficacy for some people. Apparently you're not one of them. The objective problem here is what constitutes 'reliable proof,' of efficacy and suitability of purpose. The problem is too complex for simple or universal solutions or they would exist. There are plenty of motivated people who want and need them.

In any case, I offer congratulations on your multiple escapes and best wishes for current and future freedom and happiness.

[Chas]

Do you also doubt that depression, schizophrenia, ADHD, etc. are diseases?

Addiction is most certainly at least a mental disease, and many substances are physically addictive. I assume you've gone through withdrawal?

I have been clean and sober for nearly 25 years. I went to AA and NA and they helped me. My experience is no more evidence than is yours - they are both just anecdotes.

I don't know whether 12-step programs are very effective or not; determining that will require actual studies.
Your claim that it is bogus is worth no more than someone's claim that it's the greatest thing since sliced bread.

[archangle]

I'd like to begin by saying that I do not believe NA to be a sinister money-grabbing brain-washing cult. There are certainly many disturbed and even dangerous people in NA, but that can't be blamed on NA itself. The NA litterature provides a lot of insight on what its like to be a drug addict, which is based on experience. Also, the therapeutic value of sharing thoughts and feelings with your peers cannot be denied, so long as its done in a constructive way.
My problem with NA/AA is that it does not provide the solution/cure to the disease of addiction that it claims to. From what I've seen, it actually works quite poorly. Also, there is no (and probably cannot be) any reliable data on how well NA/AA works. Despite this the twelve step movement likes to blow its own horn and make wild, sometimes even absurd claims about its own effectiveness and membership.

A couple of days ago I met a girl I used to know back when I still went to NA. It struck me how tired, stressed and unhappy she seemed. The thing is that when I was in NA I was like that too, and everyone else it appeared. When I was in it, I stopped noticing. It was the norm. But now, after several years, it hit me hard how miserable she seemed. So I started thinking about NA again...

I'm not even sure I believe that addiction is a disease anymore. (Some drugs are obviously horribly habit-forming, but that is another matter) I have my own thesis about the nature of addiction, but that is mostly speculation at this point.
So let's look at NAs defenition of the 'disease of addiction'. NA claims that addiction is a physical, mental and spiritual disease. The use of the word 'disease' in this context is problematic, since it hints strongly at connections to medical science. The program of NA is not scientific in any way. It is a quasi-religious, quasi-psychological program.
The twelve step program is an attempt to cure this disease of addiction through spirituality. It claims that the addict is free to select whatever belief he or she wishes, but it soon becomes clear that it has to be a god that is very similar to the christian deity. Members are constantly reminded to humble themselves and to follow the tenents of NA without question or forethought. They are often reminded not to 'intellectualize' which is a typical NA misuse of a term. What they mean is that the member isn't supposed to question the program or analyze it. None of this behavior or thinking is required, but it is often repeated that if the member does not act 'correctly' he or she is more or less doomed to relapse.
One of the most disturbing things about NA is that the program is seen as infallible by core members. When a newcomer fails repeatedly, it is always because he or she didn't work hard enough, had the wrong attitude, didn't listen, didn't go to enough meetings, and so on and so forth... Ad nauseum. NA and the program is never at fault. I believe this may be because to them, the program and god are in some ways one and the same, and god must be infallible. Also, it is sometimes pointed out by NA 'apostates' that the twelve step program doesn't really change or evolve. It is still almost exactly the same as when it all began. This is very similar to other fradulent 'cures' for various diseases, like homeopathy for example. medical science and psychology are constantly reviewing themselves, moving on, evolving. This does not happen in homeopathy, or NA.

I feel that leaving NA was the best thing I've done in the last 20 years. I went from constantly relapsing and feeling like shit about myself and other people, to becoming a fairly content and very drug free person. I do have a couple of drinks now and again, but not very often. To me it no longer comes as a surprise that some statistics show that people in NA relapse more often than those who do nothing at all about their problem. Except trying to stay clean, that is.
That's right. Nothing at all is better than NA.

I think its a disgrace that society has let itself be tricked by this bogus program. Every year Swedish society wastes countless millions on ineffective twelve-step treatments. I know, since I been to them myself. It's almost comical, how poorly it works. Yet nobody questions it; even many medical professionals and social workers tell people to go to 12-step meetings without any reliable proof whatsoever that it works. I've heard its even worse in the US.

you are an utter asshole.
Take your meds.

until they can fix the brain it is an ok solution. sure it doesn't totally work. But in many cases it buys a person a year or two that they didn't have before.

dump the "addiction" part ... you should try it for the "learn about myself" part.

[SteelCurtain]

AA/NA never claims to be the cure for addiction. Find it in the literature and show me where they say, "you will no longer be an addict if you work the steps." In fact, they say the exact opposite. There is no cure. You will always be an addict. It is absolutely a disease. A life threatening disease, with no cure. Hence the phrase "one day at a time."

Addictions are in the DSM, they are shown to affect the brain in fMRI's, they have measurable, demonstrable effects on people.

People have bad experiences with AA/NA. Sometimes you have an overtly religious group, sometimes you have an abusive group. People are encouraged to shop groups until they find a connection. In my experience (I ran several groups when I was in the Navy), there is great benefit for addicts in the group experience.

So, why does the process fail? Why does it bug you that the people in the group are held accountable for themselves and each other? When someone relapses, there are several reasons. Maybe they haven't hit their rock bottom yet and aren't really ready to get clean. Maybe they actually didn't take it seriously enough. Maybe they really didn't go to enough meetings, call their sponsor when they were in trouble, take enough personal responsibility for their own recovery. The reason that AA/NA don't get held responsible for people's relapses is because it's just a set of guidelines. What good would it do anyone to blame the guidelines? Really, no one should be blamed per se. Addicts relapse, that's part of the disease. It is going to happen.

[My imaginary friend is GOD]

I agree, they are bogus. High five, bro!

[sven]

AA/NA never claims to be the cure for addiction. Find it in the literature and show me where they say, "you will no longer be an addict if you work the steps." In fact, they say the exact opposite. There is no cure. You will always be an addict. It is absolutely a disease. A life threatening disease, with no cure. Hence the phrase "one day at a time."

Allready in the Big Book of AA, it is claimed that the old myth "once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic" will be shattered by the book.
Besides; what negative consequences of drinking could you get if you don't drink?

---

Addiction is most certainly at least a mental disease, and many substances are physically addictive. I assume you've gone through withdrawal?

Why do you assume that? I haven't taken a controlled substance in many years.

[Minimalist]

"Always" and "never" are useless concepts when people are involved. Sometimes these things work and sometimes they don't. That does not mean they should be scrapped.

What pisses me off is when judges sentence someone to attend NA/AA. There is nothing magical about attending to the meetings if you are only going to fulfill a legal requirement. The subject has to buy in to the process or it has no chance.

[sven]

"Always" and "never" are useless concepts when people are involved. Sometimes these things work and sometimes they don't. That does not mean they should be scrapped.

What pisses me off is when judges sentence someone to attend NA/AA. There is nothing magical about attending to the meetings if you are only going to fulfill a legal requirement. The subject has to buy in to the process or it has no chance.

I agree strongly with this. I have to add however that buying into the process, however strongly, is not always enough. The brain wants to have fun.

[SteelCurtain]

The brain wants to have fun.

Hence: disease.