A.A(Alcoholics Anonymous) meetings religious?

sopretty · 17-02-2014 6:38pm

Brian - do you believe that once you're not drinking, that you're no longer an alcoholic?

sopretty · 17-02-2014 6:41pm

Say for example - I don't drink Monday to Thursday, but drink solidly every waking hour from Friday night to Sunday night, am I a sort of 'part-time alcoholic'? Hee hee.
Or someone who gives it up for 3 months and then goes on a massive bender for a week? For the 3 months of not drinking, were they cured of their alcoholism? And then is it a case of 'oh look at him there now - his alcoholism is back again'?

sopretty · 17-02-2014 6:57pm

I have to say that the more I read opinions of the 'non-afflicted', the more amused I am becoming, and the more I realise that I might as well be trying to teach my dog an appreciation for Beethoven.

Something that has been interesting me though, are these supposed 'other treatments' for alcoholism which are being alluded to. What are they? There was mention of medication if I recall correctly? What medications are they exactly?

Personally, I would love if more research was conducted into treatment for alcoholism. In fact, I'd love if they'd completely cure it, so that never again, would I have to drink until I fell asleep, once I had started. Wouldn't I love to be able to go and have 'a few pints' lol. (The mere thought of such a thing scares me to death quite frankly!).

The reality is though, that up until now, despite centuries of this 'epidemic', NO solution has been found. No pill has been found. No cure has been found.

Where I could see the most useful research taking place, is looking at what CAUSES alcoholism. Prevention is better than cure as they say!

Maybe some day, I'll be able to ring into my boss, Brian Shanahan and say, 'I'm sorry - I won't be in today - I've an awful dose of the auld alcoholism back'.

Brian Shanahan · 17-02-2014 6:57pm

Amazingfun wrote: »

LOL! You are not a member of AA, how on earth would you imagine you have any say in "improving" AA. This thread is hilarious.

I have a say because I interact with people who use AA to try and stop being alcaholics. I drive around the place a nice bit, and I don't want people who have a drink-driving problem entering into courses where they think their problem will be solved, even though there is a 95% chance it won't*. Because if they suffer a relapse (which the overwhelming possibility is that they will) and get back behind the wheel of a car sozzled it may be me who's the innocent they kill (or my mother of father, or one of my three cousins over the road at 8,6 & 4). Alcaholism is by its very nature a social problem, it doesn't just affect the sufferers or their families it affects every single person they have a chance of coming into contact with.

Therefore, yes, I have a right to demand that the AA change its modus operandi to be based on best evidence and practise, not the current devotion it has to god and other woo.

sopretty · 17-02-2014 7:01pm

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

I have a say because I interact with people who use AA to try and stop being alcaholics. I drive around the place a nice bit, and I don't want people who have a drink-driving problem entering into courses where they think their problem will be solved, even though there is a 95% chance it won't*. Because if they suffer a relapse (which the overwhelming possibility is that they will) and get back behind the wheel of a car sozzled it may be me who's the innocent they kill (or my mother of father, or one of my three cousins over the road at 8,6 & 4). Alcaholism is by its very nature a social problem, it doesn't just affect the sufferers or their families it affects every single person they have a chance of coming into contact with.

Therefore, yes, I have a right to demand that the AA change its modus operandi to be based on best evidence and practise, not the current devotion it has to god and other woo.

Not every alcoholic drinks and drives and not every person who drinks and drives is an alcoholic!

gaynorvader · 17-02-2014 7:31pm

sopretty wrote: »

I have to say that the more I read opinions of the 'non-afflicted', the more amused I am becoming, and the more I realise that I might as well be trying to teach my dog an appreciation for Beethoven.

Something that has been interesting me though, are these supposed 'other treatments' for alcoholism which are being alluded to. What are they? There was mention of medication if I recall correctly? What medications are they exactly?

Personally, I would love if more research was conducted into treatment for alcoholism. In fact, I'd love if they'd completely cure it, so that never again, would I have to drink until I fell asleep, once I had started. Wouldn't I love to be able to go and have 'a few pints' lol. (The mere thought of such a thing scares me to death quite frankly!).

The reality is though, that up until now, despite centuries of this 'epidemic', NO solution has been found. No pill has been found. No cure has been found.

Where I could see the most useful research taking place, is looking at what CAUSES alcoholism. Prevention is better than cure as they say!

Maybe some day, I'll be able to ring into my boss, Brian Shanahan and say, 'I'm sorry - I won't be in today - I've an awful dose of the auld alcoholism back'.

Glossing over the random insult. The sad fact of the matter is, because AA is accepted as being "the" solution, no other solutions are being researched much. There was a drug that AA in the states was lobbying to have banned that was going through FDA approval a few year ago, but I'm not sure what became of it. I hope they do start researching it in earnest.

sopretty · 17-02-2014 7:33pm

gaynorvader wrote: »

Glossing over the random insult. The sad fact of the matter is, because AA is accepted as being "the" solution, no other solutions are being researched much. There was a drug that AA in the states was lobbying to have banned that was going through FDA approval a few year ago, but I'm not sure what became of it. I hope they do start researching it in earnest.

AA lobbying to have a drug banned? Have you a link to that wee scéal? Thanks in advance!

sopretty · 17-02-2014 8:09pm

rwg wrote: »

you seem to have a problem with your figures - how in gods name can you possibly quantify every person that has tried to give up drinking?

Did I just see you mention 'gods name'? Good Lord (woops), they're really going to believe that AA is not religious now!!!

Joking...... obviously. :pac:

gaynorvader · 17-02-2014 8:30pm

sopretty wrote: »

AA lobbying to have a drug banned? Have you a link to that wee scéal? Thanks in advance!

I can't find any concrete evidence of it (loads of accusations been thrown around), so I'll have to conclude that my memory is either failing me or I was taken in by a biased article, my apologies.

sopretty · 17-02-2014 8:32pm

gaynorvader wrote: »

I can't find any concrete evidence of it (loads of accusations been thrown around), so I'll have to conclude that my memory is either failing me or I was taken in by a biased article, my apologies.

Thanks for clearing that up. That is noble of you and takes integrity, so thank you for that. Genuinely.

sopretty · 17-02-2014 8:36pm

It might be worth quoting the AA preamble (the boring bit which is read out at every meeting, but underpins the entire structure of AA):

The AA Preamble

ALCOHOLICS ANONYMOUS is a fellowship of men and women who share their experience, strength and hope with each other that they may solve their common problem and help others to recover from alcoholism. The only requirement for membership is a desire to stop drinking. There are no dues or fees for A.A. membership; we are self-supporting through our own contributions. A.A. is not allied with any sect, denomination, politics, organization or institution; does not wish to engage in any controversy; neither endorses nor opposes any causes. Our primary purpose is to stay sober and help other alcoholics to achieve sobriety.

marienbad · 17-02-2014 9:43pm

I attend AA meetings and have done for all my 35 years of sobriety and I was atheist/agnostic going in and I still am today and reading this thread I find myself in the strange position of being befuddled my some of my Boards posting 'heroes' -particularly nozzferrahhtoo and Brian Shanahan.

A lot of the stuff posted here about AA simply isn't correct , not any meeting can be called an AA meeting, closed meetings are never 'chaired' or even attended by non alcoholics . AA has never claimed a monopoly on recovery methods and has never shied away from working with medical professionals .

On the religion thing - the meetings are a reflection of the society in which they are based, so in catholic Ireland there will be a lot of Catholics - surprise surprise, but not exclusively so and never in a proselytising manner.

About the style and content of the Big Book, it true to say it is written in that bumptious patriarchal 1930's Americana style and it has never changed, but somewhere inside all that boilerplate there is a core message that had resonated with some of us with startling results , and still does today.

On AA versus science - well ,to people of my drinking generation (1970's) it was the failure of medicine the drove us to AA. About the only choices available were the psych ward (and electric shock) or do nothing and endure a slow descent into drinking madness or AA. And that was it.

Some of us were lucky and got or were gifted great fulfilling lives , and some of us didn't , why that is so I can't say but I do know it wasn't on merit. I heard a stat once about alcoholism and AA - I don't know if it is true but it feels true - I in 10 in society has alcoholic tendencies and of that
only 1 in 10 gets to AA and of that only 1 in 10 stay, very small numbers indeed , but if you are one of the lucky ones it is life itself.

As for the damage that AA could do, again I can only speak from my own experience , but I would say it is very little if any and for the most ridiculous of reasons , we are so fcuked up by the time we reach AA that we couldn't be much worse.

None of the above in any way will satisfy the legitimate concerns raised by nozze and Brian S. but again I will emphasise it is because of the failure of Government and science and medicine in particular that AA exists and offers some hope to people.

Finally I don't think people understand the terrifying nature of alcohol or drug addiction and anything that offers hope must be welcomed.

And as Obama said (when we still loved him) 'there is nothing false about hope'

mathepac · 17-02-2014 10:58pm

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

... the AA ... effective as the AA. ... the AA have refused .... between the AA ... .

The AA fixes cars. You can contact Conor Faughnan here

Amazingfun · 17-02-2014 11:49pm

And as Obama said (when we still loved him) 'there is nothing false about hope'

I never loved him, but a brilliant post otherwise, lol

Amazingfun · 17-02-2014 11:54pm

[

Brian Shanahan;89053091]I have a say because I interact with people who use AA to try and stop being alcaholics. I drive around the place a nice bit, and I don't want people who have a drink-driving problem entering into courses where they think their problem will be solved, even though there is a 95% chance it won't*. Because if they suffer a relapse (which the overwhelming possibility is that they will) and get back behind the wheel of a car sozzled it may be me who's the innocent they kill (or my mother of father, or one of my three cousins over the road at 8,6 & 4). Alcaholism is by its very nature a social problem, it doesn't just affect the sufferers or their families it affects every single person they have a chance of coming into contact with.

Therefore, yes, I have a right to demand that the AA change its modus operandi to be based on best evidence and practise, not the current devotion it has to god and other woo.[

:pac: "Demand" all you like, lol......let me know how that works out for you!

roosh · 18-02-2014 2:55am

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I directly commented on this. How is directly commenting on something "ignoring" it. You appear to have a unique definition of "ignore". The very fact it uses the word "him" already imparts an implicit understanding of this "god". The very word itself already carries meanings and implications. And this is not unique within the 12 steps at all. Other attributes are directly implied for what this "god" is and does.

The description of this "god" one sees when reading the 12 steps is a very clearly theistic one. You might on paper claim people can understand it whatever way they want.... and it sounds good on paper I am sure..... but it does not change the fact that the interpretation the actual 12 steps makes is very clearly theistic in nature.

As mentioned, you seem to be ignoring what the "actual text" of the 12 steps states. You use an imagined, preconceived idea of peer pressure in 12-step groups coupled with the "actual text" of the 12-steps to dismiss a part of the "actual text" of the 12-steps - spurious, at best.

What description of "God" is in the 12-steps? The male personal pronoun? The ability of this "God" to remove defects? Yes, on the surface this would seem to be somewhat descriptive, but when more than just the text of the 12-steps is read - the corresponding 12-step literature, perhaps - it becomes clear that the "defects" of the alcoholic are "removed" by doing the practical work in the steps.

Yes, this potentially leads us into an infinite loop bcos the belief in a power greater than oneself and a God of ones own understanding is part of the steps, but again, the critical point is that it is a god of one's own understanding.

The "God" of ones own understanding doesn't necessarily have to be theistic, it could be pantheistic, or whatever prefix one wishes to put in front of the term "theistic". It could even be non-theistic; a person can believe that through evolution the human mind has evolved in such a way that the practical actions of the 12-steps - self-examination, admitting ones mistakes and making amends for those mistakes, as well as meditation - has an effect on the human mind, such that it is conducive to recovery. Now, unless a person believes that they themselves were responsible for the evolution of the human mind they must necessarily believe that it is attributable to an external factor - "a power greater than themselves". If they believe that the universe has unfolded in such a way that humans have evolved the way they have - without positing a supernatural, invisible friend, but just the universe - would that be considered theistic?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

It includes that but is not limited to that by far. I have explained at length on the thread what my issues are, not just in the post(s) replying to you. I can only suggest you go read them all before replying as otherwise I just have to repeat what I have already said, which will just bore any users who have actually been following the thread.

One big example though is the idea of telling people they are powerless over alcohol. I find that to be as baseless as it is misleading and dangerous.

For now I'll just deal with has been posted in response to me.

Telling alcoholics that they are powerless over their addiction is dangerous? I think it is infinitely more dangerous to tell them that they have the power to control their addiction. If addicts had the power to control their addiction they wouldn't need to seek treatment, they would just control their addiction and stop engaging in addictive behaviour.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

There are, but they are off topic to the thread any my point. As my point is, regardless of whether there already are or not, our goal should be to establish them. And continuously improve them iteratively over time. That is my point regardless of whether there actually is or is not CURRENTLY such a thing.

Are you stating that AA doesn't follow the current best practices?

I don't disagree with you on the notion that we should be striving to find the best possible solution to addiction, but that isn't necessarily the remit of 12-step programs. They were established to meet a need that was not being met; they were established to offer a possible solution to the problem of addiction not necessarily the only solution.

I dare say if a much more effective treatment is discovered, then you will see 12-step programs start to wane.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Which is _exactly_ why people like myself want to see the research being done. To find out IF over all it is actively harming people. There are genuine reasons for suspecting this is possible and therefore it is the responsible thing to do to go in and find out.

What are the reasons for believing that 12-step programs are actively harming people?

I don't doubt that some individuals can exploit other individuals within programs, and have heard anecdotal evidence to this end; just as I don't doubt there are medical professionals who can, and do, do the same. As for the 12-step programs actively harming people, I've seen nothing within the 12-step programs themselves that would give me cause for concern.

I would be all in favour of research, the more we understand the various aspects of addiction, as well as the potential issues with 12-step programs, or any other addiction treatment, the better.

roosh · 18-02-2014 3:07am

sopretty wrote: »

I have to say that the more I read opinions of the 'non-afflicted', the more amused I am becoming, and the more I realise that I might as well be trying to teach my dog an appreciation for Beethoven.

Something that has been interesting me though, are these supposed 'other treatments' for alcoholism which are being alluded to. What are they? There was mention of medication if I recall correctly? What medications are they exactly?

Personally, I would love if more research was conducted into treatment for alcoholism. In fact, I'd love if they'd completely cure it, so that never again, would I have to drink until I fell asleep, once I had started. Wouldn't I love to be able to go and have 'a few pints' lol. (The mere thought of such a thing scares me to death quite frankly!).

The reality is though, that up until now, despite centuries of this 'epidemic', NO solution has been found. No pill has been found. No cure has been found.

Where I could see the most useful research taking place, is looking at what CAUSES alcoholism. Prevention is better than cure as they say!

Maybe some day, I'll be able to ring into my boss, Brian Shanahan and say, 'I'm sorry - I won't be in today - I've an awful dose of the auld alcoholism back'.

A family member recovered (is in recovery) from Gambling addiction through Cognitive Behavioural Therapy. They just never took to the 12-step programs. I'm not sure of the efficacy of CBT with respect to substance addiction, or addiction treatment in general, but it worked for them. It didn't work for others they know.

Personally I would suggest to anyone, avail of as many such treatments as you can.

nagirrac · 18-02-2014 4:52am

marienbad wrote: »

I attend AA meetings and have done for all my 35 years of sobriety and I was atheist/agnostic going in and I still am today and reading this thread I find myself in the strange position of being befuddled my some of my Boards posting 'heroes' -particularly nozzferrahhtoo and Brian Shanahan.

Some of us were lucky and got or were gifted great fulfilling lives , and some of us didn't , why that is so I can't say but I do know it wasn't on merit. I heard a stat once about alcoholism and AA - I don't know if it is true but it feels true - I in 10 in society has alcoholic tendencies and of that
only 1 in 10 gets to AA and of that only 1 in 10 stay, very small numbers indeed , but if you are one of the lucky ones it is life itself.

Superb and inspiring post Marienbad.

Literally every study I have read suggests your stat is roughly correct, with the caveat that 10% of the population have a predisposition to an addictive personality, and the percentage of those that go on to develop an actual substance addiction depends largely on their environment and circumstances. I have also seen studies that also back up the claim that only 1 in 10 seek treatment, which makes a mockery of the "better" solutions out there, when 90% are untreated.

The argument equating a 5% success rate from programs like AA with a 5% success rate in those that seek no treatment is pure bunkum. Different strokes for different folks, some have the fortitude and willpower to battle their demons alone, and fair play to them, some are not so fortunate. The point which seems lost on many in this thread is that those who seek help have given up trying to help themselves. Its just that not all have the $50,000 for the 3 month Betty Ford stay (also a 12 step program incidentally, borrowed from AA).

One slight quibble with your post. The only heroes in life are those that give their time to help others with no expectation of material gain. I have been lucky enough to avoid treatment programs myself, but know plenty who have availed of them (not just AA), to varying degrees of success. To a person they are grateful to those they have encountered, as in many cases just one supportive person can be the difference between life or death. Given the time you have attended a program yourself, I can imagine you have provided much encouragement to others, and therefore you are much more deserving of the title hero than any of the resident "experts" here.

nozzferrahhtoo · 18-02-2014 10:09am

roosh wrote: »

As mentioned, you seem to be ignoring what the "actual text" of the 12 steps states.

Yet mentioning it does not make it true, any more than repetition of it does. I referred directly to the text, therefore how can I be ignoring it? That is like accusing someone of ignoring you when they have been talking right to you all day. It makes no sense.

The "actual text" very clearly not only uses the word "god" but mentions directly some very blatantly theistic attributes of this "god".

Now you can claim people take or leave that as they wish, but you are saying nothing about AA then, and everything about the capability people have to simply pretend.

What is the history here in your opinion by the way? Who actually invented the 12 steps and what did they draw on while doing it? What were the influences and idea and inputs and resources that were drawn on to construct them?

roosh wrote: »

Telling alcoholics that they are powerless over their addiction is dangerous?

Yes. Firstly because it is false. The ONLY person who has the power to say no to alcohol is the person themselves. Yes they might need support, help, friends, information, life style changes and much more.... but at the end of the day it comes down to them, their choice, their own power. They are the exact opposite of powerless.

And as psychologists would point out if you tell people they can not succeed on their own, this becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. You convince a man he is going to die tomorrow, he will likely find a way to make it happen. If you convince people they can not succeed even if they try.... they will likely find a way to fail.

roosh wrote: »

Are you stating that AA doesn't follow the current best practices?

It is not just me stating it, I am being told it by many people who go to AA who post on forums. I am being told that many AA meetings are simply throwing out half the 12 step approach and just running the meeting whatever way they like.

In fact based on this people recommend that if you do not like one AA meeting, then try another one and another one until you find one that works for you. Why? Because they are actually all different enough to each other than if you have 10 of them, you might love the 11th.

How could they be following a best practice guideline if their implementations are THAT diverse and unregulated and uncontrolled?

Also what is "best practice" in the world of epidemiology? It means constantly monitoring the efficacy of your treatment, and updating the program to reflect the data that comes in. Information literally saves lives.

Yet AA not only do not do this, but actively resist any attempt to.

Further this penchant for calling alcoholism a disease without really qualifying that means they can not really be building a good treatment. The first step in treating any condition is to identify the cause of the condition. If you have a mineral deficiency then treating this with an anti biotic is clearly not going to work. Yet you could present with the EXACT SAME symptoms and have a bacterial infection, so mineral supplements are not going to help either.

You have to identify the root conditions actually being treated before you can formulate treatments. Simply calling it a disease for the sake of it and proceeding from there is not a good way to start.

So yes, I strongly feel that AA are not following any kind of best practice guidelines.

nozzferrahhtoo · 18-02-2014 10:09am

marienbad wrote: »

I find myself in the strange position of being befuddled my some of my Boards posting 'heroes' -particularly nozzferrahhtoo and Brian Shanahan.

I am a WHAT now?

marienbad wrote: »

A lot of the stuff posted here about AA simply isn't correct , not any meeting can be called an AA meeting

That is exactly my point, so I am glad to have you back it up. To my mind you can not just simply stick AA on the door and call it an AA meeting.

But any time someone like me points to a part of the "program" I feel uneasy about... I am simply told that "Oh thats not so important, we do not really use that / have that / do that part in our meet ups".

So what confuses me, and perhaps my confusion is what in turn has confused you, is what _actually_ constitutes an AA meeting. It appears that anyone who gets 3 or more people together who want to stop drinking simply do so.... stick AA on the door.... and then take or leave.... ad hoc..... subjectively..... any parts of the "program" that personally pleases them.

And that is the part that horrifies me. Can you imagine doctors doing this? Simply taking what parts of medicine that personally please them, and ditch the rest? Unregulated, uncontrolled.

If there is a solution, or program, that helps these people then it should be implemented. Not cherry picked ad hoc by people who feel like it. It should be centrally regulated by a head office, controlled, data taken on the efficacy, and the program modified to reflect the information that comes back from this.

marienbad wrote: »

we are so fcuked up by the time we reach AA that we couldn't be much worse.

Hard to say. I have read some worrying things where AA has been used to get access to vulnerable people and abuse them. Helped of course by the unregulated nature of AA.

nozzferrahhtoo · 18-02-2014 10:10am

sopretty wrote: »

I have to say that the more I read opinions of the 'non-afflicted', the more amused I am becoming, and the more I realise that I might as well be trying to teach my dog an appreciation for Beethoven.

If that is your approach to discourse they yes, you might as well be engaging in it with your dog. You just sit around claiming to be amused without engaging with a single thing people are actually saying. Not big, and not clever.

It has nothing to do with being "afflicted" or not. It has everything to do with being trained and knowledgeable in how we as a species treat conditions, and being worried that the same practices are not being followed here. Not just being followed but followed badly.... but not being followed at all.

I heartily recommend the book "Bad Science" by Ben Goldacre to you. It is the best book I have found for the layman on the methodologies and motivations behind Epidemiology and Statistical Analysis. It will give you an appreciation on now just how we engage in evaluating the efficacy of any kind of treatment, but more importantly from you I feel: WHY we do it. Information, quite literally, saves lives.

sopretty wrote: »

The reality is though, that up until now, despite centuries of this 'epidemic', NO solution has been found.

A situation that is not helped one iota by having people ad hoc engage in trying to help people cure themselves, while resisting any and all attempts at evaluation of the efficacy of their methods.

And as another user pointed out, as long as people have this religious like desire to protect AA from critique and to laud unwarranted praise on it as being the best solution we have.... the motivation to research further cures or treatments or aids is also low.

Worse there is a tendency by people like AA to call it a "disease" which is misleading. And having this level of misinformation generally going around is not likely to help us treat it correctly.

sopretty wrote: »

AA lobbying to have a drug banned? Have you a link to that wee scéal? Thanks in advance!

The user was likely referring to something that was mentioned in the Penn and Teller video. You could go back and watch the video again and follow it up.

On a similar note there was a study done about whether AA actively dissuades drug use for alcoholism. The results were not strong to suggest they do, but they were still worrying at the same time.

For example it found that the more meetings a person went to correlated with a higher resistance to the idea of drugs for assistance. Almost a third (29%) reported personally experiencing some pressure to stop a medication (of any type). However, 69% of these continued taking the medication regardless of that pressure.

This is why the research is needed and needed badly. If AA are displaying a success rate of 5% while some people are suggesting something like.... random exmaple here which I have no investment in so I can remain unbiased.... The Sinclair method is showing VASTLY higher results then we need to investigate that.

nozzferrahhtoo · 18-02-2014 10:10am

nagirrac wrote: »

which makes a mockery of the "better" solutions out there, when 90% are untreated.

Not really. When we measure the efficacy of a treatment program we only ever directly study the people who were treated. Nothing else makes sense. However we can use the people who are untreated as a control group for comparison purposes.

nagirrac wrote: »

The argument equating a 5% success rate from programs like AA with a 5% success rate in those that seek no treatment is pure bunkum.

Except it is not. And you simply asserting it is does not magically make it so, as I have tried to tell you on a few topics before to no apparent avail. You literally insist on acting like assertion makes fact.

If one group is untreated and one group is treated, and the recovery rate between them is identical.... then this is not "bunkum" but a highly relevant and important statistic.

nagirrac wrote: »

The point which seems lost on many in this thread is that those who seek help have given up trying to help themselves.

Another baseless assertion. When people decide to tackle the problem then some do try to do it alone, and some do go DIRECTLY to things like AA. So you can not assert that people seeking help have given up trying alone. Some have simply BYPASSED trying alone. "AA" is a household name. It is the first thing people generally think of when they think of combating alcohol. So some people simply gravitate directly towards it when they want to stop.

Brian Shanahan · 18-02-2014 1:05pm

sopretty wrote: »

Not every alcoholic drinks and drives and not every person who drinks and drives is an alcoholic!

And that doesn't even begin to address my point. But then again nothing any of ye pro-AAers have posted in this thread (and in fact nothing any pro-AAer has said ever) has done anything to address the points made by people who are rightly sceptical of the effectiveness of the AA (as it's most recent verifiable figures show its no better than placebo, and tbh given the lack of proper recent data I think the AA is worse than placebo).

Brian Shanahan · 18-02-2014 1:18pm

marienbad wrote: »

I attend AA meetings and have done for all my 35 years of sobriety and I was atheist/agnostic going in and I still am today and reading this thread I find myself in the strange position of being befuddled my some of my Boards posting 'heroes' -particularly nozzferrahhtoo and Brian Shanahan.

Regarding the base point we're only going on what they are giving us (bad and all as it is). They are saying themselves that they are no better than placebo.

What myself and nozz want is for the AA to man up and properly scrutinise themselves and their activities so that they can create a system of help that is better than the AA disbanding and all their activists going onto other activities (their 5% success rate would be achieved with or without the help of the AA). We want the AA to improve itself, not remain with the likes of reiki, homeopathy, crystal therapy, which all go on "gut feeling", "instinct", "what our ancestors have always done is automatically right" and strongly discouraging people from accessing treatments which are known to have reasonable success rates.

And as Obama said (when we still loved him) 'there is nothing false about hope'

Oh how wrong this sentence is. I can give lots of examples:
The Warsaw Poles hoped the Red Army would help them when they rose up against the Nazis. That hope was false.

Mordechai Chaim Rumkowski hoped that by cooperating with Nazi authorities the 200,000 Jews living in Lodz under his supervision would be spared the Holocaust. That hope was false.

Closer to home, how many rebellions has Ireland gone through in the hopes that the people would rise up alongside the rebels or Spain, France or Germany would give support enough for the rebels to win?

Hope never stacks up well against a well prepared plan.

Amazingfun · 18-02-2014 1:48pm

So what confuses me, and perhaps my confusion is what in turn has confused you, is what _actually_ constitutes an AA meeting. It appears that anyone who gets 3 or more people together who want to stop drinking simply do so.... stick AA on the door.... and then take or leave.... ad hoc..... subjectively..... any parts of the "program" that personally pleases them.

And that is the part that horrifies me. Can you imagine doctors doing this? Simply taking what parts of medicine that personally please them, and ditch the rest? Unregulated, uncontrolled.

I sincerely hope many more AA members come by and read this thread for the Lolz, and there is nothing more amusing than seeing non-AA members feign "horror" at how they imagine AA works (or doesn't, according to them) , lol! Thanks for the laughs boyz

nozzferrahhtoo · 18-02-2014 2:17pm

Amazingfun wrote: »

I sincerely hope many more AA members come by and read this thread for the Lolz, and there is nothing more amusing than seeing non-AA members feign "horror" at how they imagine AA works

You feigning amusement in order to dismiss the words of others in no way furthers the conversation and is just ugly on the face of it.

I am not just giving my impression of it. I am telling you what others in AA have been telling me too. So your issue is not with what I have been saying but with what actual AA members have been saying.

Again, as I said, when I raise concerns about certain aspects of AA I am simply told things like 'Ah we do not do that part anyway, we just throw that out with the bathwater' (paraphrased).

Which leads me to, as I have done several times on this thread, ask "What exactly does constitute an AA meeting then?" and as you can see except for fake laughing off my inquiry, I am not actually getting an answer.

Put it this way. If an expert in AA were to go around 200 meetings and tick one box for each of them "AA" and "not AA", exactly what criteria would be used to ascertain the difference?

And if there are a set list of steps and tenets that make up AA, and people who start AA meetings are just taking or leaving whichever ones they want..... is the nature of my concern about that really entirely opaque to you, or do you well understand my point behind your feux contrived laughing people off rather than engaging with them?

marienbad · 18-02-2014 2:44pm

Just on the stats discussion - I think the figure of 5% may be off the mark .
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/does-alcoholics-anonymous-work/?page=2

AA (imo) will never 'man up' and create a system that is better as Brian says . I think people have a fundamental misunderstanding of what AA is.

There is no organisation in the sense that people would normally define.Each group is self supporting and a small proportion of the dues collected is sent to 'central office' and that is used to prints books etc and that is it. In all my years in AA I have yet to meet an actual official 'official' . I have been secretary of my local group many times but that is a purely voluntary/elected/co-opted role with little more responsibility that opening and closing the room and keeping the tea and biscuits available.

As for the nature of the condition the WHO clearly classifies it as a disease
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/157163.php

On the issue of AA being opposed to the use of drugs etc , maybe individuals were ,I really can't say, but as we neither endorse or oppose anything as a group I can't see it myself. I do remember in the 80's some antibooze drugs as they were called came on the market and I do know that some individuals tried them and some didn't . I don't know of any long term (over 2 years) sober people that tried them . I didn't then and I wouldn't now because I was happy in my sobriety and had no need of them as I had no desire to drink.

I was a complete fcuk up,a flake ,a walking disaster, a menace to society , whatever cliché you like, when I came to AA. Taking antibooze and nothing else,no guidance, counselling, therapy meant I was just a dry flake. And that was all that was on offer and still is to a great extent .AA provided that guidance- no more no less.

In the absence of anything else AA thrived and if Science/Medicine and Government ''man up'' to use Brian's phrase and truly face the problems of addiction in our society then it should wither on the vine, should it not ?

By the way even today when AA may well be a household name very few if any come to it except as a last resort .The stigma of being an alcoholic is still that strong . It is still the port of last call.

Brian- there is nothing false about hope- even in the examples you give , who is to say that Warsaw Rising didn't restore the pride of a nation in opposing the tyranny of one oppressor and expose the hypocracy of the one to come and thus ensure future dissent . And in Rumkowski's case it could and has been argued he prolonged the life of those Jews months and years longer than might have been the case. And all done just a day at a time.

And that is all AA does - it offers hope a day at a time that one can have a future. An so what if someone falls after 3 months or 3 years or even a week, if nothing else the physical respite alone is worth the price of admission.

I am not unaware of the faults and dangers of such unregulated entities though and I am sure people have been taken advantage of in the past and in the present .I do notice an increasing occurrence of cases of cross-addiction attending AA meetings and I have been told it is because young people feel safer there. Which if true is profoundly disturbing.

mazcon · 18-02-2014 2:50pm

This thread has gone away from the original question somewhat. That question was "is AA very religious?" AA is a spiritual programme of recovery that does not espouse one particular religion. All religions and none are welcome. The references to God and to a Higher Power are off putting to some people but you are free to take your own meaning from either. As has been said, given that Ireland has traditionally been predominately Catholic many members take 'God' to be the traditional God they grew up with. However there is no obligation to take any particular meaning from it. The important thing is to accept that you are not the Higher Power. I have been a member of Alanon for more than 12 years and attend one meeting a week on average, so over 600 meetings in the last 12 years. I have never seen or heard of anyone been forced to accept any particular dogma nor have I seen anyone excluded or made to feel
excluded for having different beliefs or no beliefs. It really is a personal understanding for each individual.
AA doesn't suit everybody and if I have one criticism it is that some members have the mentality that it is the only show in town in terms of recovery. It can appear religious given that it finishes with a prayer and that might go totally against what feels right for you. However I would suggest that you attend a few meetings with an open mind and see what you think. I know many members who are atheist or agnostic and who have found help so the spiritual nature of the programme needn't necessarily be a stumbling block.
I am not going to join in the discussion regarding the efficacy of AA, I think the length of my membership can be taken as an indication of which side of this particular fence I come down on. The best of luck in your recovery OP whatever path you choose to pursue.

nozzferrahhtoo · 18-02-2014 5:31pm

marienbad wrote: »

Just on the stats discussion - I think the figure of 5% may be off the mark.

Very hard to say. The 5% figure is generally based on AAs own internal statistics. What little of them were actually made public. The problem with many studies of AA so far however is they have been poorly controlled with poor methodologies. Some studies for example ONLY look at the success rates in long term members. However that is a massage of the figures as long term members are by default going to show better results than any other set.

marienbad wrote: »

There is no organisation in the sense that people would normally define.

And that is the reason for some of the problems I have mentioned in numerous posts now. The fact there is no central body implementing, updating, studying and policing a "best practice" policy means that people are engaged in nothing more than setting up an ad hoc group, with ad hoc processes and ideas, intended to address a very real world problem. While their heart is more often than not going to be firmly in the right place doing this.... the question is how good an idea is that? Sending untrained people with no real plan into help with genuine psychological and other problems is irresponsible. At best.

marienbad wrote: »

As for the nature of the condition the WHO clearly classifies it as a disease

I am stuck for time now so I only very very quickly read over that article. But the only mention of "WHO" I can find in it in no way suggests they class it as a disease.

When I finished reading I then did a search in the document for "World" "WHO" and "disease" and I still can not find any mention of WHO classifying it as such.

Have I missed something or did you perhaps provide the wrong link? I thought WHO referred to is as a "Dependency" not a disease. Check ICD-10 for example.

However I should point out that _who_ is calling it a disease is not important. _Why_ they are doing so is. If WHO or anyone else wants to classify it as a disease then I want to know A) what definition and attributes are they using to class things as a disease and then

which attributes of alcohol dependency they found matched their definition.

For example one of the exports rolled out by Penn and Teller in the video earlier in this thread pointed out that Alcoholism matches none of the requirements for being a "disease" they we generally operate on.

marienbad wrote: »

On the issue of AA being opposed to the use of drugs etc , maybe individuals were

Another reason to have a constantly improved and updated set of "Best Practices" to roll out and enforce. Then individuals can not simply throw their opinion at vulnerable people who are, in some cases, likely to take the word of group leaders and so forth at these meetings as gospel or credible.

A certain amount of trust is invested in group leaders of these kind of things by the people who attend. Whether intentional or not on behalf of the receiver or giver. So it is irresponsible and even dangerous to put yourself in such a position of trust and start espousing such opinions without first checking if your opinions are valid, helpful, or dangerous.

nozzferrahhtoo · 18-02-2014 5:31pm

mazcon wrote: »

This thread has gone away from the original question somewhat. That question was "is AA very religious?"

Even that question needs to be clarified somewhat. Is it at the core religious. If it religious in present day. Was it religious when it first started. How religious are any individual meetings. Given how ad hoc and cherry picked some of them are, how religious they are is likely going to have less to do with AA and more to do with the guy or gal starting each particular meeting up.

But as pointed out a few times, if you read down through the list of 12 steps, they do not just use the term "god" which is overtly and blatantly religious.... but they assign this "god" attributes and capabilities. And it would take someone entirely blind, or willfully or actually deluded, to not see the overlaps between those attributes and capabilities.... and the kinds of theism we in the western world are more than used to.

You and several others have pointed out you are free to "take your own meaning" from this text. I am all for that.... but I am not for lying to ourselves and pretending that to do so demands one simply ignore the direct implications of the text and the wording through them.

And if you go to a meeting with 30 other people, all taking the theistic meaning of it, in a christian country in a christian context.... how "free" are you really in the face of peer pressure and the one who will "stand out" to actually take your own meaning. On paper it is great to talk about choice, but in practice one has to ask how realistic it is one can actually take that choice.

There simply are going to be, in the diversity of meeting types we have heard described here, some meetings where telling people they have that choice is like telling a woman in a deeply committed Muslim community that she has the choice to not wear the hijab. A choice it may well be, but we know damn well some people simply cant take it.

mazcon wrote: »

The important thing is to accept that you are not the Higher Power.

And why is that "important"? Why do we have to tell people they are powerless over alcohol and they have to turn it over to a "higher power". Especially if they sit there hoping this "higher power" will do something when there is often no reason to think it will.... given the lack of any and ALL data to even suggest a "god" exists?

The fact seems to me to be that the ONLY person who has power to not drink, is the drinker. Yes they need support of friends, family, and other people who have the same issue. I would not deny any of that. But at the end of the day the power is THEIRS. Not their friends. Not their family. Not their alcoholic peers. And certainly not some imaginary unsubstantiated god entity in the sky.

A.A(Alcoholics Anonymous) meetings religious?

Comments