Alcoholics Anonymous and Drug Addiction

[vorlon13]

I've always viewed AA as a far greater 'existential threat' to organized religion than to atheism.


And AA isn't the only way. But for courts, they need something with some positive control, like 'court cards'. (I've signed them, but they actually violate some internal rules of AA) So courts like to send drunks to AA. I've encountered people that have never set foot in an AA meeting that have achieved sobriety.

Something else that 'works' is continuing to drink but having dedicated enablers at the ready. Kids and spouses can be employed to make drinking 'work' far longer for people than for the folks with nobody. Kids can clean up vomit, they can pretend not to be disappointed when drunk mom or dad forgets to pick them up after soccer practice. Spouse can hide car keys, and take on an extra job to pay for the damage that accrues from drunken mate. Even very young children can turn off the TV and lights at night when parent is passed out on floor laying in their own excrement, and they can get themselves off to school the next day if the parent is still glued to the floor the following morning. (dried vomit and shit can be surprisingly effective as glue)


Someone I went to high school with managed to drink himself to death, and all he had to do was be a pleasant drunk. He never picked fights or caused a ruckus, and no one ever bothered to confront him over his prodigious drinking. He died just short of his 50th birthday, and was more or less functional (mostly less) up until just a few hours before his liver crashed and burned.

Don't think AA is the only way for even a minute.

[Jenny A]

See video ^

Mmmm, no. Penn & Teller are not a particularly credible source for that.

The are no clinical trials thoughAA claims 56 percent, while those looking a AA number get 35% at best. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effectivene..._Anonymous http://www.cbtrecovery.org/AAefficacyrates.htm

5-10% is the estimate of outsiders crunching the numbers:
http://www.npr.org/2014/03/23/291405829/...p-recovery

http://www.salon.com/2014/03/23/the_pseu...addiction/

There may be no accurate number: http://www.thefix.com/content/the-real-statistics-of-aa7301

[vorlon13]

I can't imagine how you'd get an accurate number. Hell, I've got over 28 years, but I don't have a specific 'home' group that would be theoretically keeping track of me.

And if you're asking random people about drinking and meetings and such, good luck getting honest answers with that. Ever notice on Cops everyone stopped that is falling down drunk has only had 2 beers?

[AceBoogie]

While I admit that it may be hard to determine a 'success rate,' for AA, the 5% claim sounds about right to me. Though I'm no expert, keep that in mind. To me it just sounds about right. Then again, what are we defining as 'success?' Is success DYING sober? Or is it staying sober for a certain amount of time? There are too many factors to truly consider 5% as a DEFINITIVE success rate (whatever that might mean) for AA, but like I said that sounds about right.

[vorlon13]

Even for people like 'Tracy' that I don't consider a 'success' at all, she still managed to half fill a coffee mug with 30 day chips. So, I'd estimate in the course of 10 years she was probably sober for a total time of around 33 to 50%. I suppose some would count her as 33 to 50% success, but I'd rate her a big fat zero.

[John V]

I wasn't claiming that this was strictly an AA thing, I was talking strictly about how AA members feel about people who get sober without AA. Obviously many different groups of people in society tend to think in a righteous manner about their ways of living.

Er, OK...a little random to just start a thread about it regarding AA, but whatever.

But yes it's interesting... AA is a nonprofit group but their whole pitch just leaves you thinking, "ok what's the catch?"

It never left me thinking that. AA didn't work for me in the long run. All the talk about drinking just made me want to drink. But I have plenty of respect for them. I didn't see any catches. As they say in the intro to many meetings, "If you want what we have..." Seems like a fair pitch to me.

---

Five percent is hardly doing well. So cheer leading for it is a disservice to alcoholics and other addicts. But you're right that celebrating what worked for oneself is human. It's just not necessarily useful to anyone else.

First, you don't know that it's five percent. Second, if it's 5%, that's a huge deal to the 5% and their families, as no one else is offering anything better.

I suspect you are thinking of me (among others) as one of those who think all Christians are miserable and sexually repressed.

Nope. I can't recall specific people, but it's a common enough thought here.

I don't--though I do know Christians who are one, the other, or both of those things. Absent religion, I don't really know anyone who is very sexual repressed though not all the religious are sexually repressed.

Surveys tend to show the religious as fulfilled sexually and the non-religious.

If religion helps some escape miserableness in the form of alcoholism or anything else, I don't see that separating them from religion makes much sense, unless they are hurting others with religion. But it's important to understand that religion is not the only escape from miserableness and proclaiming that it is, is not a healthy thing. That is what AA does with a 5% track record.

Again, we don't know what the success rate is. Further, there's no reason to expect a high success rate from an organization that opens its doors to anyone who would walk in - even people only there because of a court order. The thought is that those who drop out will at least have an idea about the program if they ever get to the point of really wanting it.

[vorlon13]

Being 'ready' helps more than anything.

For me, it was literally stop or die, and the die thing was coming up real soon. And even at the precipice, the most I thought I could commit to was to try it for a while, and then upon proving sobriety was worse than what I was doing . . . .

For some folks the realization occurs posthumously.

[John V]

I do agree that abstinence is probably much better of an idea than attempting 'controlled' drug use.

But I think the whole 'higher power' thing is more about ego deflation than anything, which I can also agree is a good thing, to some extent of course. However, most people in AA seem to fail to realize that ego deflation is one of the objectives of the program, and simply act on blind faith of what other 'AA's' say about certain things. AA almost wants you to become an obedient little dog because it will save your life if you 'just follow directions.' Which I think takes the whole ego deflation thing a bit too far.

Some people in AA go as far as saying, 'Don't think about it, just do it! Your best thinking is what got you here in the first place.' Which is utterly hilarious. The Big Book even talks about 'intellectuals' and how they have a hard time staying sober because they are 'too smart' for their own good. Which is also hilarious. Like I said I agree that many addicts, and normal people in general, could probably use a nice dose of ego deflation, but when you say things like, 'Intelligence will not keep you sober, quit trying to think about everything!' you are basically saying don't be intelligent and just do what we say. Some have gone as far as telling others that they will not stay sober because they are too smart for their own good. Which is ridiculous.

The whole attitude that some people in AA have tends to sort of pervade throughout the majority of members because even though some people want to say, "Hey you're full of shit," they won't because they will be told that "With that type of attitude you're not going to stay sober." And it's pretty sad. The herd mentality is dangerously reminiscent of a religion, which is not surprising since AA, though members will deny this, is a RELIGIOUS program.

I do know some Atheists in AA, and they found a way to make AA make sense for them. Basically, take what you need and leave the rest.

With that being said I do support any method that one uses to get sober. While I don't believe addiction is a disease necessarily I do think there is something different about those in society that are addicts. And I do think seeking help is a good idea.

From the typical preamble to a meeting:

Our stories disclose in a general way what we used to be like, what happened, and what we are like now. If you have decided you want what we have and are willing to go to any length to get it-then you are ready to take certain steps.

I.e., they're very upfront that, if you want what they have, you need to do what they say. If you don't want it, you're free to leave.

---

Being 'ready' helps more than anything.

For me, it was literally stop or die, and the die thing was coming up real soon. And even at the precipice, the most I thought I could commit to was to try it for a while, and then upon proving sobriety was worse than what I was doing . . . .

For some folks the realization occurs posthumously.

Yes, IMO the addict can't quit until he hits bottom. Bottom is different for different people. For me it was a blackout during sober hours. Scared me shitless and got me to a meeting. AA gave me a foundation and a lot of wisdom, but I haven't been to a meeting in decades. The big book is amazing. Felt like it was speaking directly to me.

[Jenny A]

Five percent is hardly doing well. So cheer leading for it is a disservice to alcoholics and other addicts. But you're right that celebrating what worked for oneself is human. It's just not necessarily useful to anyone else.

First, you don't know that it's five percent. Second, if it's 5%, that's a huge deal to the 5% and their families, as no one else is offering anything better.

Not so if AA does no better than people trying to quit on their own or not as well as other programs. Nothing against AA except that I dislike anyone who claims success without tracking the numbers.

If religion helps some escape miserableness in the form of alcoholism or anything else, I don't see that separating them from religion makes much sense, unless they are hurting others with religion. But it's important to understand that religion is not the only escape from miserableness and proclaiming that it is, is not a healthy thing. That is what AA does with a 5% track record.

Again, we don't know what the success rate is. Further, there's no reason to expect a high success rate from an organization that opens its doors to anyone who would walk in - even people only there because of a court order. The thought is that those who drop out will at least have an idea about the program if they ever get to the point of really wanting it.

It's a theist based solution and putting anyone there by court order is an establishment of religion. No reason it can't be on a menu of court ordered option though.

And again, without the numbers to back it, it should not claim successes it cannot demonstrate.

[vorlon13]

I've had an issue with the 'serenity prayer' typically recited at every meeting. I'm not big on telling God what to do, or being around others who do so, (for obvious reason of his nonexistense) but the big problem with the serenity prayer is the acceptance BS.

Never achieved that, and have done my time in mostly open defiance of it.


Something else helpful is being around those you feel don't have a chance of making it and seeing them get better despite the expectation.