Slashdot Mirror

Before you outright state its a bad idea you might want to read about how it was before it was illegal.

Moreover, there is empirical data to suggest that 12-Step programs are more effective than alternative treatments: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T63-4NT93TD-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=3532d0365bafe068101e1d966398ec3a

No. That's 12 step vs 12 step.

In standard referral, patients received a schedule for local 12-step SHG meetings and were encouraged to attend. Intensive referral had the key elements of counselors linking patients to 12-step volunteers and using 12-step journals to check on meeting attendance.

I don't even know where to start with the rest of the study. Also keep in mind that once a person is indoctrinated into AA, they *are* likely to do worse without it, as they are indoctrinated to believe that not going to meetings means jail institutions or death. It's the AA equivalent of hell and creates a self-fulfilling prophecy. Here's some research for you. Remember. Contempt prior to investigation.

It's hardly Scientology, and if they need to use bait & switch to be effective, well, it's hard to argue with success.

But it's not *ethical*. Have you ever heard of informed consent? That's a hell of a rationalization there. Even if it worked, which i'm still waiting on, it would still not be right. People have the right to choose. Something can't be consensual if you don't know what you are consenting to or are deceived into it. I don't care how benign you claim it is. "It's for your own good" is not an idea I like very much.

Well. You believe you are powerless. I get that. Do you have any scientific evidence that it's actually so? I'd suggest looking at both sides of the issue. Read some Stanton Peele. Let me ask you this, though. If you're powerless. Waht is stopping you from driving out right now and buying a bottle of vodka? It's not god as you've admitted and the people you know presumably aren't with you 24/7. Who exactly is doing that? Now tell me again. Are you truly powerless? Because otherwise you're not making much logical sense. The picking up of a drink is a behavior and a choice, as is the decision not to.

Sure. People get better in AA. Statistically, though, they would have gotten better anyway and there is evidence to suggest they're worse off in AA (Brandsma et. al). What you have there is anecdotal evidence. Don't you think that if AA really worked there would be some studies out there showing it to be so? I challenge you to look into that... to look into both sides. You know what they say about contempt prior to investigation.

Depression from loss or trauma is very similar to withdrawal symptoms (Stanton Peele, Ph.D). If you find it so unnecessary to distinguish between hobby, habit, and addiction, perhaps you are unable to. What is the difference? The only difference I see is the approval of the majority over the actions of the minority and that holds true with your judgement over other peoples *choices* of social interaction. Who are you to judge whether or not a friendship is valid or whether a social interaction is deep enough. In some ways, it could be argued that the lack of physical interaction decreases social inhibition and increases the possibilities in which people can get to know each other intellectually and emotionally. Sometimes when a person is blind, they are more attuned to other senses. You could say that while online interactions lack in some areas, they excel in others. What the fuck is wrong with slashdot that you get modded insightful.

Stanton Peele, a Psychologist who studies addiction wrote an article in support of your claims. Heroin is only dangerous in it's illegal form where purity is an unknown. Before it was made illegal, heroin overdose was practically unheard of.

Ok. So it's naltrexone therapy. Good option. Did you know AA actively lobbied against Naltrexone. There was a Penn and Teller episode on AA that told the story briefly. See this video at about 7:50. The whole episode is fantastic, but they're a bit brief on the statistics. Stanton Peele covers those in depth in his books in which he takes a look at George Vaillant's original data. It's rare to find somebody else who is interested in the study of addiction. Feel free to shoot me an email sometime at psyborgue@mac.com. I'd love to know what you're background in this is if you feel comfortable.

Not that I'm endorsing the cure this man purports to sell, but the 12 steppers are a cultic bunch who attack anybody who dares critize their authority over the addiction treatment industry. Check out the end of this book chapter written by Stanton Peele. Stanton Peele is a man who has been pushing for a more scientific and less religious (12 step) approach to alcohol and addiction treatment. 12 steppers believe, for instance that the 12 steps were given to Bill Wilson by God. This is what's passed off as science in the addiction industry. AA is very very hostile towards any drug based treatment of alcoholism and has lobbied against drugs that treat alcohol dependence. They do this because they believe alcohoism is a "spiritual disease" and that the only true treatment is through god as interpred through the 12 steps. It's just about the only religion (and it has been ruled a religious organization by the courts) that the state mandates people attend. Does it work? No, and in some cases may actually cause harm (Brandsma study), but that's whole other can of worms.

I do understand addiction. I'm just not a fan of the disease concept.

So let's take your first claim that an addict is completely out of control over his or her use, that a person is powerless over a substance in front of them. Consider this experiment, where heroin addicts are given heroin and also given aid in getting their lives back on track. Similar to results in Vancouver and the UK, the "addicts" quit of their own accord. Similar results have been found with alcohol (see section on loss of control). Why I don't like the concept? It provides the excuse for forced treatment or incarceration for victimless crimes under AA's cancerous idea that a person is powerless, that addiction is progressive and always fatal. All dogma spewed out of Bill Wilson's drunk cultic ass. So called "god inspired" horseshit that has somehow supplanted science in the addiction industry. Anybody who dares speak against the disease concept is persecuted against as a heretic (see last section).

I don't have "fears" of AA. I understand it perfectly well. Probably better than you ever will, and it disgusts the hell out of me. It's government sponsored dogma masquerading as science.

And if we want to get into personal anecdote, i've had three friends who have been serious addicts. Two were heroin addicts who up and quit (and are still "sober", though they still drink somethings which is an NA heresy). The third was a meth addict who first caused me to look closer at AA. At the time I thought it to be somehow science... I knew little about it. Anyway. He quit on his own and is still sober after several years. Perhaps you want to spit on his recovery like so many other AA members and imply he was never really an addict. Well. Unlike AA members, he didn't need some flying spaghetti monster to quit.

And yes, I fully admit i'm bitter towards the 12 steppers, but not without good reason. As for the rest of your assumptions about addiction, I suggest you read a book like Stanton Peele's "Diseasing of America", Charles Bufe's "AA, cult or cure"... there are many on the subject.

I do understand addiction. I'm just not a fan of the disease concept.

So let's take your first claim that an addict is completely out of control over his or her use, that a person is powerless over a substance in front of them. Consider this experiment, where heroin addicts are given heroin and also given aid in getting their lives back on track. Similar to results in Vancouver and the UK, the "addicts" quit of their own accord. Similar results have been found with alcohol (see section on loss of control). Why I don't like the concept? It provides the excuse for forced treatment or incarceration for victimless crimes under AA's cancerous idea that a person is powerless, that addiction is progressive and always fatal. All dogma spewed out of Bill Wilson's drunk cultic ass. So called "god inspired" horseshit that has somehow supplanted science in the addiction industry. Anybody who dares speak against the disease concept is persecuted against as a heretic (see last section).

I don't have "fears" of AA. I understand it perfectly well. Probably better than you ever will, and it disgusts the hell out of me. It's government sponsored dogma masquerading as science.

And if we want to get into personal anecdote, i've had three friends who have been serious addicts. Two were heroin addicts who up and quit (and are still "sober", though they still drink somethings which is an NA heresy). The third was a meth addict who first caused me to look closer at AA. At the time I thought it to be somehow science... I knew little about it. Anyway. He quit on his own and is still sober after several years. Perhaps you want to spit on his recovery like so many other AA members and imply he was never really an addict. Well. Unlike AA members, he didn't need some flying spaghetti monster to quit.

And yes, I fully admit i'm bitter towards the 12 steppers, but not without good reason. As for the rest of your assumptions about addiction, I suggest you read a book like Stanton Peele's "Diseasing of America", Charles Bufe's "AA, cult or cure"... there are many on the subject.

I do understand addiction. I'm just not a fan of the disease concept.

So let's take your first claim that an addict is completely out of control over his or her use, that a person is powerless over a substance in front of them. Consider this experiment, where heroin addicts are given heroin and also given aid in getting their lives back on track. Similar to results in Vancouver and the UK, the "addicts" quit of their own accord. Similar results have been found with alcohol (see section on loss of control). Why I don't like the concept? It provides the excuse for forced treatment or incarceration for victimless crimes under AA's cancerous idea that a person is powerless, that addiction is progressive and always fatal. All dogma spewed out of Bill Wilson's drunk cultic ass. So called "god inspired" horseshit that has somehow supplanted science in the addiction industry. Anybody who dares speak against the disease concept is persecuted against as a heretic (see last section).

I don't have "fears" of AA. I understand it perfectly well. Probably better than you ever will, and it disgusts the hell out of me. It's government sponsored dogma masquerading as science.

And if we want to get into personal anecdote, i've had three friends who have been serious addicts. Two were heroin addicts who up and quit (and are still "sober", though they still drink somethings which is an NA heresy). The third was a meth addict who first caused me to look closer at AA. At the time I thought it to be somehow science... I knew little about it. Anyway. He quit on his own and is still sober after several years. Perhaps you want to spit on his recovery like so many other AA members and imply he was never really an addict. Well. Unlike AA members, he didn't need some flying spaghetti monster to quit.

And yes, I fully admit i'm bitter towards the 12 steppers, but not without good reason. As for the rest of your assumptions about addiction, I suggest you read a book like Stanton Peele's "Diseasing of America", Charles Bufe's "AA, cult or cure"... there are many on the subject.

I saw "treatment" in this article title and was immediately interested for many reasons, but I expected alcohol/drug abuse problems to come up. My main "hobby horse" is that MAINSTREAM alcohol and drug treatment consists of, and is run by, members of 12-step groups (Alcholics Anonymous, Narcotics Anonymous, etc.), which are interently religious (despite the "spiritual, not religious" claim) and have no scientific basis. The influence of "steppism" is so pervasive that it strongly influences addiction research in the USA to the point of looking for genetic causes of addictive behaviors and for other evidence that such behaviors are "diseases" (ideas promoted by the step groups, whose members' PR efforts through front groups such as NCADD and CASA have been so effective that much of the general public believes these things). Any research that involves attempting to REDUCE drinking or drug use, rather than demanding abstinence from its subjects, is verboten and regarded as dangerous!

AC, you're very lucky you didn't get sucked into Al-Anon or ACOA or some such (or maybe you did and you immediately rejected it and/or didn't tell that part of your story). Twelve step groups are the LEAST trustworthy environment I can think of. I was in AA and was a "true believer" for two years (see Box 1980/letters section, April 1990 AA Grapevine magazine for how "grateful" I was), but then I started seeing the cracks in the "perfect" program and started analyzing (going against the slogan "utilize, don't analyze) the step programs, and it took several more years to deprogram myself, verify that these things had NO basis in science or logic, and finally stop going to meetings. Meanwhile I saw too many people commit suicide due to the cognitive dissonance and conflicting messages, with their action always being blamed on "this disease," "he could not be honest with himself" or "he could not see our way of life."

There's much more info about the step group phenomenon and its dangers online at these links:
http://www.morerevealed.com/
http://www.orange-papers.org/
http://www.peele.net/

Just so people know, Alcoholics Anonymous isn't the answer either.

As a former pharmacist, I will point out that all drugs have side effects. The user and gerneral population should want to know about them. I am in no way disapproving of the use of drugs, just the abuse of drugs. Our society has for many years been in the throws of a "drug scare". I would like everyone interested to look at these links to help form a well rounded opinion. http://www.peele.net/ http://www.schaler.net/addictionisachoice/index.html

Yes, I read TFA. Been there, got the "Easy Does It" and "Sh!t Creek/up-and-back" t-shirts...

Ninety five percent of all US "Treatment Centers" are really 12-step indoctrination centers, and websearches bring up vast numbers of 12-step glurge sites by anonymous members. Virually everyone you ask will say "I don't know anything about it but AA is where you go if you have a drinking problem." Here are the needles in the haystack for anyone who is considering ot has had any 12-step involvement:

http://www.aadeprogramming.com/
I'll write my book on it someday, but meanwhile read the books online on this site:
http://morerevealed.com/

http://www.orange-papers.org/
http://www.peele.net/

If you're not familiar with 12-step programs, here is the "On-Line Gamers Anonymous" version of "How It Work", taken straight from the first three pages of chapter 5, "How It Works" of AA's "Big Book", "Alcoholics Anonymous"

http://p198.ezboard.com/folgafrm31.showMessage?top icID=4.topic

This is the original AA version (as originally PUBLISHED, not the "original manuscript"):
http://www.recovery.org/aa/bigbook/ww/chapter_5.ht ml

With organizations such as http://www.ncadd.org/ and judges ordering defendants to AA without revealing their own AA memberships, most other "high demand" groups would give up the equivalent of personal body parts to have the same PR and good image as AA. But at least the other cults, er, "high-demand coercive groups" have at least some negative images in the minds of the public.

One more link:
http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/
Click on "Religious Group Profiles" for a list of just about every group you've probably heard of.
It even lists multilevel marketing schemes under "Para-Religious Movements."

Excessive drinking or other activity done to excess can create substantial problems in one's life, but 12-step groups are NOT the answer.

I am sorry for your misfortune. I understand that this is a heated topics.

[Re: Addiction] I take minor issue with your statement that addiction happens after a few uses.

I take major issue with your assertion that the idea that the alteration of any biochemical processes by a drug either constitutions some 'addiction' that one cannot beat out without without professional or divine help, as well as the idea of an once an addict, always an addict ("addicts were never 'normal'").

Dr. Stanton Pelle points out on his website that different societies have different rates of addiction to the same drug. He also reports that "Genetically related groups in different societies vary in their addiction rates, and the susceptibility of the same individual changes over time."

J.E. Helzer, and G.J. Canino, in

Alcoholism in North America, Europe, and Asia report astounding differences in alcoholism rates between two Asian cultures with similar biology -- "The highest lifetime prevalence rates were found in U.S. native Mexican Americans at 23 percent and in the Korean survey, where the total sample rate was about 22 percent. There is about a fiftyfold difference in lifetime prevalence between these two samples and Shanghai, where the lowest lifetime prevalence of 0.45 percent was found."

Stanton Peele of the Lindesmith center in a study titled "Utilizing Culture and Behaviour in Epidemiological Models of Alcohol Consumption and Consequences for Western Nations" points out that while the country of Portugal consumes 2 1/2 times the amount of alcohol per capita they do in Iceland, the former has 800 AA groups per million, while the latter has 0.6 per million, drawing from data published by AA World Headquarters in 1991.

This suggests and extremely strong cultural component to addictive behavior in addiction to any biological tendency present.

Some societies that have used alcohol ceremonially have avoided abuse -- for example

Glassner and Berg reported in

How Jews Avoid Alcohol Problems in 1980 that out of 88 upstate New York Jewish respondants, including both Orthodox and nonobservers, there was no existence of alcoholism. They estimate alcohol abuse to be present in between 0.1% and 1% of the American Jewish population of the time.

Steele cites evidence that shows how the rates of addiction and discontinuation of heroin fluctuate with pressures at varying stages in a person's life:

Charles Winick, a psychologist dealing with public-health problems, established the phenomenon of "maturing out" in the early 1960s when he examined the rolls of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics. Winick found that one quarter of the heroin addicts on the rolls ceased to be active by the age of 26, and three quarters by the time they reached 36. A later study by J. C. Ball in a different culture (Puerto Rican), which was based on direct follow-through with addicts, found that one third of the addicts matured out. Winick's explanation is that the peak period for addiction--late adol