RATIONAL RECOVERY....what is this jibberish?????

Elenxor

"Live and let Live".
Can we please stop now?

Why a mod hasn't stepped in and closed this I don't know.
Iguana, you do realise that someone reading this might end up not trying AA (which could save their life/marriage etc) thanks to what you have said?
AA is nothing like what you are saying it is. Perhaps it was 50 years ago, but tbh your graph which shows 5% of people stopped drinking through AA is from people who were FORCED to go by the courts. 5% is a pretty good number in that context.

zero_nine

100% of drinkers would prefer to keep the pleasure of drinking, on a biological level at least.

I haven't been following all the posts, but its obvious that an AA debate has reared its sexy head again. I dunno, its not for me but I'm told that how well people get on in AA is very individual. 5% isn't that bad a recovery rate for newcomers (although I've seen stats that said it was 2%), the reason being is that when you're hungover and desperate, you'll try anything; AA immediately springs to mind and you make an almost trivial visit to a meeting(I've done this). Therefore you've got a lot of newcomers who are in acutely painful situations who are trying to shoehorn themselves into a the AA program-- 95% of whom drop out. Thats not surprising, A painful hangover doesn't be long fading. I reckon if AA charged a 500 euro signing on fee the recovery rate would be much higher. The point being that AA attracts people that want to entertain the idea of quitting but have no intention of doing so, or people wanting to placate spouses.

This debate was originally about RR. I have read RR, and have a lot of faith in it. They claim a 60% recovery rate for the ($500) program. But bottom line is I'm still drinking. Its a great story but it has thus far failed to help me completely. Its not beyond possible that I could end up coming full circle and ending up back in AA.

zero_nine

zero_nine wrote: »

100% of drinkers would prefer to keep the pleasure of drinking, on a biological level at least.

I haven't been following all the posts, but its obvious that an AA debate has reared its sexy head again. I dunno, its not for me but I'm told that how well people get on in AA is very individual. 5% isn't that bad a recovery rate for newcomers (although I've seen stats that said it was 2%), the reason being is that when you're hungover and desperate, you'll try anything; AA immediately springs to mind and you make an almost trivial visit to a meeting(I've done this). Therefore you've got a lot of newcomers who are in acutely painful situations who are trying to shoehorn themselves into a the AA program-- 95% of whom drop out. Thats not surprising, A painful hangover doesn't be long fading. I reckon if AA charged a 500 euro signing on fee the recovery rate would be much higher. The point being that AA attracts people that want to entertain the idea of quitting but have no intention of doing so, or people wanting to placate spouses.

This debate was originally about RR. I have read RR, and have a lot of faith in it. They claim a 60% recovery rate for the ($500) program. But bottom line is I'm still drinking. Its a great story but it has thus far failed to help me completely. Its not beyond possible that I could end up coming full circle and ending up back in AA.

This is it. Most people will attempt a program expecting a miracle. They'll turn up knowing they'll drink the next day or weekend and will be expecting a magical cure. They simply don't want to or aren't ready to quit.

Step 1 for me is the most important in AA. Admitting you're an alcoholic and can simply never drink. People will die of alcohol related liver failure and still believe they're not an alcoholic up to the last second. It's a complicated issue to deal with. Call it a disease, or whatever you want - but the fact is it kills people. It's available in nearly every shop, in Dublin there's a pub ever 20 feet. You can't escape it.

At least with AA there's several meetings on a day in some places. Whenever your head is messed up and you're considering falling off the wagon there's always a place you can go and talk to other alcoholics who can help you. And they don't ask for anything in return.

mazcon

I am a long time member of Alanon. The alcoholic in my life is my husband. He is sober today thanks to AA and the support, friendship and fellowship he experiences at the meetings he regularly attends. He tried in the past to get sober on his own but it never lasted long. This time, with AA, he has been sober for over two years. I recovered my sanity in Alanon. I don't agree with everything I hear members share but I do as it says in the preamble; I take what I like and leave the rest.
I can't provide scientific evidence or statistics for the success of either fellowship, but I personally know of many alcoholics and their families who are now living healthy, productive and sober lives thanks to them. That is evidence enough for me.

iguana

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

Why a mod hasn't stepped in and closed this I don't know.
Iguana, you do realise that someone reading this might end up not trying AA (which could save their life/marriage etc) thanks to what you have said?
AA is nothing like what you are saying it is. Perhaps it was 50 years ago, but tbh your graph which shows 5% of people stopped drinking through AA is from people who were FORCED to go by the courts. 5% is a pretty good number in that context.

One, you think that anyone who makes criticisms of an organisation and is able to use science to back up those criticisms should be shut up? All organisations who make the claims that the AA make need to be open to full and public scrutiny, especially when their own evidence doesn't back up the claim.

Two, if someone wants to get better they will. They will keep trying everything over and over again until something sticks, what they read here won't change that. However if someone tries AA and finds it's not for them (which seems to be the case for the vast majority) they could be left in a terrible mental state after being told that rarely does anyone who follows these simple steps not recover and that anyone who fails is quite the hopeless case. If they read this thread at least they will find that they are not at all alone, that even though you rarely hear about them there are countless different options for recovery and that studies show that actually the majority of people who want to recover do. (Yet you think the thread should be locked. )

Three, you are mixing up the quotes I have about the different studies. The graph is from a trennial study, not the study on forced attendance. The 95% drop out rate is from any and all first time attendees. The study on forced attendance study is the one that shows a very large increase in drinking following forced AA treatments.

Four, it's not from 50 years ago. The 95% dropout rate is consistent throughout the decades, and appears to still be today.

zero_nine wrote:

This debate was originally about RR. I have read RR, and have a lot of faith in it. They claim a 60% recovery rate for the ($500) program. But bottom line is I'm still drinking. Its a great story but it has thus far failed to help me completely. Its not beyond possible that I could end up coming full circle and ending up back in AA.

I agree absolutely, except tbh, I would be surprised if RR success rates alone are anything like that high. I've yet to look at it in depth so I could be wrong but my suspicion is that, that is from a subjective study. It's still such a small entity that it's hard to work it out definitively and know what sort of state people were in when they went on that course. I agree 100% with you on the difference the $500 dollars makes.

I think to recover there is a lot of mix and match. As I've said the absolute most important thing is the will of the person themselves. Their determination to beat this problem and their acceptance that there is no miracle cure and the only way to get better is damn hard work. Beyond that you just have to find all the bits and pieces that work for you.

As I said in my first post my husband believes in the general philosophy of RR, but he also attends AA as he needs to comradery and real world support of other recovering alcoholics. He also does yoga and acupuncture for stress relief (which is in many ways in spite of himself as he is as cynical of alternative medicine as you can get). He has a CBT alcoholism specialist counsellor who he sees weekly and psychologist who he has phone sessions with. He takes both Campral and a Chinese herbal remedy. He also keeps his life heavily scheduled as he still has a deep need for strong daily structure to avoid finding himself at a loose end. It's all mix and match, finding a path that works and working hard at it.

I have nothing but respect for the ordinary people of AA, whatever philosophy they believe in. They help themselves and they help others. But I have serious, serious problem with the people who run this incredibly wealthy organisation. The dangerous arrogance they display when they know their way is just one way of very many but continue to claim it is the only way, even when there is evidence that this is the reason for their very high death rate, is disgusting. This needs to be challenged, seriously challenged at every turn. A potential 5% success rate isn't bad at all, imo, as long as they are honest about that rate and point people toward alternatives when they need them.

derealbadger

as far as im concerned i am not posting in this thread any more as it is just pointless and i really think that the mods should lock it as its very dangerous in the event that it stays open if people just don't respond it will die any way

mathepac

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

Why a mod hasn't stepped in and closed this I don't know...

derealbadger wrote: »

... i really think that the mods should lock it as its very dangerous ...

iguana is a mod.

derealbadger

mathepac wrote: »

iguana is a mod.

not of this forum shes not

Forum Mods: Dave!, Frisbee
Category Mods: nesf, Scofflaw

iguana

derealbadger wrote: »

as far as im concerned i am not posting in this thread any more as it is just pointless and i really think that the mods should lock it as its very dangerous in the event that it stays open if people just don't respond it will die any way

It's dangerous for people to know the truth? Is that really what you are saying, do you not understand that it is comments like that which put people off AA? Trying to shut down debate is cultish behaviour, it scares the hell out of people.

The very simple fact is that AA is not for everyone, nothing is for everyone. It's one method out of so many. But instead of just being open about that, they move to shut down debate (just look at the situation in America with the amount of pressure put on the Supreme Court to refuse to hear cases of infringements of religious freedom) and insist that if the steps don't work for you then their chances of recovery are less than average due to how they were born.

Nothing in this thread is more dangerous and damages more lives than this;

Rarely have we seen a person fail who has thoroughly followed our path. Those who do not recover are people who cannot or will not completely give themselves to this simple program, usually men and women who are constitutionally incapable of being honest with themselves. There are such unfortunates. They are not at fault; they seem to have been born that way. They are naturally incapable of grasping and developing a manner of living which demands rigorous honesty. Their chances are less than average.

derealbadger

you are very bitter towards A.A not the A.A as you would say is there any particular reason

iguana

derealbadger wrote: »

you are very bitter towards A.A not the A.A as you would say is there any particular reason

What????

As I have said there are plenty of merits to the organisation and I have a lot of admiration for the ordinary members. My husband attends AA, I attend Al-Anon when I feel a need to.

But the people who run the organisation are dangerously arrogant and their policies are very damaging. Most people who go to AA don't stay, it has a very particular philosophy which doesn't work for most people. Those people need to know that there are alternatives, lots and lots and lots of alternatives. And that all the most recent studies show that the vast, vast majority of people who seek recovery ultimately succeed. They need hope and being told that not feeling able to commit to steps they don't believe in means they are unconstitutionally incapable of personal honesty and as such have lower than average chance of recovery is a devastating thing to be told.

I've spent most of my career working with charities because I wanted to do something to make the world better. If someone came to my organisation wanting to help or donate but they didn't like our policies for whatever reason I didn't tell them that this was because they were born in such a way that made them incapable of giving. I pointed them toward a charity that was a type they were looking for. It didn't benefit me personally or my organisation but it meant that the end goal of helping people was achieved. And that's what an organisation who's real priority is to help people would get sober would do. They would tell people that aren't fitting in with them that there are alternatives, point them in the right direction and wish them luck. If the were really and truly only about helping addicts recover they would utilise all means necessary.

derealbadger

iguana wrote: »

What????

As I have said there are plenty of merits to the organisation and I have a lot of admiration for the ordinary members. My husband attends AA, I attend Al-Anon when I feel a need to.

But the people who run the organisation are dangerously arrogant and their policies are very damaging. Most people who go to AA don't stay, it has a very particular philosophy which doesn't work for most people. Those people need to know that there are alternatives, lots and lots and lots of alternatives. And that all the most recent studies show that the vast, vast majority of people who seek recovery ultimately succeed. They need hope and being told that not feeling able to commit to steps they don't believe in means they are unconstitutionally incapable of personal honesty and as such have lower than average chance of recovery is a devastating thing to be told.

I've spent most of my career working with charities because I wanted to do something to make the world better. If someone came to my organisation wanting to help or donate but they didn't like our policies for whatever reason I didn't tell them that this was because they were born in such a way that made them incapable of giving. I pointed them toward a charity that was a type they were looking for. It didn't benefit me personally or my organisation but it meant that the end goal of helping people was achieved. And that's what an organisation who's real priority is to help people would get sober would do. They would tell people that aren't fitting in with them that there are alternatives, point them in the right direction and wish them luck. If the were really and truly only about helping addicts recover they would utilise all means necessary.

If its so bad why does your husband go there if as you say there are so many better alternatives why not justy use them and stay away from all the evil A.A people


oh and on the people who run A.A comment
12 traditions of A.A
12 Traditions Of Alcoholics Anonymous

1. Our common welfare should come first: personal recovery depends upon A.A. unity.
2. For our Group purpose, there is but one ultimate authority – a loving God as He may express Himself in our Group Conscience. Our leaders are but trusted servants; – they do not govern.
3. The only requirement for A.A. membership is a desire to stop drinking.
4. Each group should be autonomous except in matters affecting other groups or A.A. as a whole.
5. Each group has but one primary purpose – to carry its message to the alcoholic who still suffers.
6. An A.A. group ought never endorse, finance or lend the A.A. name to any related facility or outside enterprise, lest problems of money, property and prestige divert us from our primary purpose.
7. Every A.A. group ought to be fully self-supporting declining outside contributions.
8. Alcoholics Anonymous should remain forever non – professional, but our service centres may employ special workers.
9. A.A. as such, ought never be organised; but we may create service boards or committees directly responsible to those they serve.
10. Alcoholics Anonymous has no opinion on outside issues; hence the A.A. name ought never be drawn into public controversy.
11. Our public relations policy is based on attraction rather than promotion: we need always maintain personal anonymity at the level of press, radio and films.
12. Anonymity is the spiritual foundation of all our Traditions, ever reminding us to place principles before personalities.

and I rely don't care how you feel about A.A but it saved my life and my problem was not alcohol it was life and I needed a alcohol to cope with life my childhood and everything else if I had not found alcohol when I did I would probably have committed suicide anyway but drink stopped working instead of being the solution it became part of the problem but I don't go to A.A so as not to drink I go to A.A and work a 12 step program to deal with life as an alcoholic without a drink this is the last post i am putting in the non-drinkers forum as I feel that you are doing more harm than good I have no problem with you promoting any form of treatment but to try to put down one form to justify another is a very unethical and dangerous way to do it i wish everybody well in staying of the drink and having a better life what ever wa7y they do it

regards and good luck all

mazcon

iguana wrote: »

The 95% drop out rate is from any and all first time attendees.

The group surveyed would have been a sample group not an extensive trawl of all first time attendees. Given the anonymous nature of the fellowship and lack of record keeping with regard to membership and attendance it would be very difficult to carry out research on an extensive enough number to provide empirical evidence of the efficacy (or not) of AA.

derealbadger wrote: »

you are very bitter towards A.A not the A.A as you would say is there any particular reason

I think this refers to you calling Alcoholics Anonymous "the AA", rather than AA.

The AA fixes your cars, AA fixes your alcoholics (or not depending on your opinion);)

iguana

mazcon wrote: »

The group surveyed would have been a sample group not an extensive trawl of all first time attendees.

Yes but this survey has been done over and over again and the more than 95% drop out rate is consistent. Surveying from sample groups is the generally accepted way to gather information in all areas of research. We aren't yet at a point where it's possible to survey everyone in anything at all.

derealbadger wrote:

If its so bad why does your husband go there if as you say there are so many better alternatives why not justy use them and stay away from all the evil A.A people

Are you for real? Do you just choose random words that I write and assign your own interpretation? I have detailed exactly why my husband goes to meetings and what he takes from them over and over again on this thread. It couldn't be plainer. I'm sorry but attitudes like yours are exactly why the AA terrifies so many people.

derealbadger wrote: »

but to try to put down one form to justify another is a very unethical and dangerous way to do it

That's not what I'm doing at all. Criticising unethical behaviour isn't 'putting it down to justify another.' And it isn't ignoring the merits of the group either.

CDfm

I imagine that the why the discussion has veered about ways to stop and the nature of addiction is about beliefs.

Any method that works is good.

The nature of addiction is elusive as is why some people get addicted and some don't but anyone with a problem must want to stop.

The only reason I could see for not looking at a method and that is any method would be to avoid quitting.

I have never heard any group anywhere telling people not to use medication or get medical help from a doctor and use perscribed medication provided they don't self medicate.

Its the same with religous or beliefs its about thinking of yourself and focusing elsewhere and not letting your life be ruled or ruined by your boozing or whatever.

The best definition I have heard is living life deliberately.

Ultimately, my life is better not drinking and that is the goal.

If it works for you embrace it and if it doesnt try to find a method or methods including medication that works and use your doctor for that. The only yardstick is that you have quit and have a normal happy life.

Thats my ten cents.

CDfm

CDfm wrote: »

I imagine that the why the discussion has veered about ways to stop and the nature of addiction is about beliefs.

Any method that works is good.

The nature of addiction is elusive as is why some people get addicted and some don't but anyone with a problem must want to stop.

The only reason I could see for not looking at a method and that is any method would be to avoid quitting.

I have never heard any group anywhere telling people not to use medication or get medical help from a doctor and use perscribed medication provided they don't self medicate.

Its the same with religous or beliefs its about thinking of yourself and focusing elsewhere and not letting your life be ruled or ruined by your boozing or whatever.

The best definition I have heard is living life deliberately.

Ultimately, my life is better not drinking and that is the goal.

If it works for you embrace it and if it doesnt try to find a method or methods including medication that works and use your doctor for that. The only yardstick is that you have quit and have a normal happy life.

Thats my ten cents.

This is exactly the point. I've had to make many changes in my life to quit. The gym, yoga, AA meetings and I've began reading more about philosophy. I'm trying to change my whole outlook on life, I'm not just trying to quit drinking without removing the void.

Iguana, we're not asking this thread to be closed because there is criticism of AA. It's the way in which you are coming across - describing the organisation as inherently a bad thing which shouldn't be touched because it will do more harm than good. And all of this while your husband is getting some benefit from it.

I don't understand where you're coming from, perhaps your husband tried AA and didn't succeed the first time and you don't like it for that reason? I don't know. Personally I went to a meeting over a year ago to placate my girlfriend and it didn't work. When I went back 3 months ago it was for myself. I accepted my problem and knew I had to work at my sobriety, that it wasn't just going to fall into my lap miraculously.

I've never heard anyone in AA talk down about any other program or even about using medication. I'm on anti-d's myself. The only thing I've seen is understanding, because they have been there too.

Elenxor

I go to AA meetings, I make no apology, it's my business
It works for me!
Everyone there is an "ordinary" person...we share a common enemy., and nobody has ever judged me!
As to any other form of therapy., if it works for you, go for it.

Oh, and yes, AA, it is a non profit making organisation and completely free.
The only requirment is a desire to stop drinking.

iguana

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

describing the organisation as inherently a bad thing which shouldn't be touched because it will do more harm than good.

That is not in anyway what I am saying and I really don't know how anyone is reading that into what I've written. It's honestly like people are picking and choosing from the words on the screen and assigning their own meaning to them instead of actually reading what is written.

I am saying that there is nothing wrong with giving it a shot, people could easily find something good about it. That even if they don't find that good right away give it a fair chance but if it's still not working for you not to give up hope, there are so many alternatives. In fact maybe you'll decide at some point to try it again and get some benefit then.

The reason it does more harm than good is not because of what goes on at meetings, but because of the way the greater organisation runs itself and the message it sends out. Manoeuvring themselves into positions of huge influence and power, having their organisation pushed into the penal system, applying pressure to the US Supreme Court to refuse to hear legal challenges based on religious freedoms. Publishing literature condemning use of medication in treatment, conducting studies where they find there are problems with some of their methods but ignoring these findings instead of taking the opportunity to find out what's not working and improve their service. Stating categorically that those who can not work their steps are flawed on a biological level. All of that is underhanded behaviour which does a lot of harm to a lot of people, apparently more than they help.

Try comparing it to this analogy. The Catholic church disgusts me, they have committed crimes of abuse and covered them up, they have preached discrimination and had many negative influences on state policy in many countries. The problems are institutional and were only allowed to continue because of the policy coming from the top. However I have met loads of lovely priests, nuns and monks, great people who would bend over backwards to help the people who look for it. Who provide comfort and celebration for those who need it. Who give the lonely and the frightened time and respect. Who are really just good people who do good for others. And as much as I would love to see big, big changes to the Catholic church I admire many of their representatives because many people's live would be poorer and I'm glad they are there for those who need them.

It's like that with the AA. Of course someone who has an addiction problem should try AA (though if their addiction is chronic seeking medical advice should always be the first step - cold turkey is physically very dangerous). It could easily be enough to get them to a better place. But if it isn't they need to know there are alternatives. The people in AA at ground level are great, have a lot to offer and they come from a very genuine place. But the policies of those running the organisation are in many serious cases awful and the policy and political influence they assert are awfully damaging.

CDfm

iguana wrote: »

Yes but this survey has been done over and over again and the more than 95% drop out rate is consistent. Surveying from sample groups is the generally accepted way to gather information in all areas of research. We aren't yet at a point where it's possible to survey everyone in anything at all.

I do not imagine it is an easy thing to survey because of the nature of an organisation that is based on anonymity.

Are you for real? Do you just choose random words that I write and assign your own interpretation? I have detailed exactly why my husband goes to meetings and what he takes from them over and over again on this thread. It couldn't be plainer. I'm sorry but attitudes like yours are exactly why the AA terrifies so many people.

Good for hubby & good for you too.

Whatever he is doing works for him .

Didn't John Waters explore the same themes in his book "Lapsed Agnostic"

http://www.amazon.com/Lapsed-Agnostic-John-Waters/dp/0826491464

That's not what I'm doing at all. Criticising unethical behaviour isn't 'putting it down to justify another.' And it isn't ignoring the merits of the group either.

Not specifically aimed at you Iguana

People who live a Rock n' roll lifestyle die rock n' roll deaths. Its not anyones fault or any groups fault.(except for the surviving members of the Doors).

Go to any mental institution and you will see your share of mentally damaged and mentally ill people and people who cant cope in the real world without harming themselves or others.

I know two women who have been taken into care over the side effects of cannabis (one of them is a lawyer and is not getting out ever ).

So my take on it is do what you need to do pilgrims :cool:

iguana

iguana wrote: »

That is not in anyway what I am saying and I really don't know how anyone is reading that into what I've written. It's honestly like people are picking and choosing from the words on the screen and assigning their own meaning to them instead of actually reading what is written.

I am saying that there is nothing wrong with giving it a shot, people could easily find something good about it. That even if they don't find that good right away give it a fair chance but if it's still not working for you not to give up hope, there are so many alternatives. In fact maybe you'll decide at some point to try it again and get some benefit then.

The reason it does more harm than good is not because of what goes on at meetings, but because of the way the greater organisation runs itself and the message it sends out. Manoeuvring themselves into positions of huge influence and power, having their organisation pushed into the penal system, applying pressure to the US Supreme Court to refuse to hear legal challenges based on religious freedoms. Publishing literature condemning use of medication in treatment, conducting studies where they find there are problems with some of their methods but ignoring these findings instead of taking the opportunity to find out what's not working and improve their service. Stating categorically that those who can not work their steps are flawed on a biological level. All of that is underhanded behaviour which does a lot of harm to a lot of people, apparently more than they help.

Try comparing it to this analogy. The Catholic church disgusts me, they have committed crimes of abuse and covered them up, they have preached discrimination and had many negative influences on state policy in many countries. The problems are institutional and were only allowed to continue because of the policy coming from the top. However I have met loads of lovely priests, nuns and monks, great people who would bend over backwards to help the people who look for it. Who provide comfort and celebration for those who need it. Who give the lonely and the frightened time and respect. Who are really just good people who do good for others. And as much as I would love to see big, big changes to the Catholic church I admire many of their representatives because many people's live would be poorer and I'm glad they are there for those who need them.

It's like that with the AA. Of course someone who has an addiction problem should try AA (though if their addiction is chronic seeking medical advice should always be the first step - cold turkey is physically very dangerous). It could easily be enough to get them to a better place. But if it isn't they need to know there are alternatives. The people in AA at ground level are great, have a lot to offer and they come from a very genuine place. But the policies of those running the organisation are in many serious cases awful and the policy and political influence they assert are awfully damaging.

See what you've done there?

I really have never heard anything about AA as an organisation putting itself into a position of power or authority. Quite the opposite in fact. My understanding is that AA was used as a free outlet to treat alcoholic criminals instead of locking them up as opposed to AA having any influence in the decision.

Now if you've got any evidence of AA going out of it's way to obtain "power and influence" I'd like to see the links. I'm not saying you're wrong, just that you should back up what you're saying.

Does "AA HQ" even have any authority over individual groups? I never thought it did. I mean, there is no sort of pope or vatican type council which throws out orders.


I'd just like to add that nobody is attacking you Iguana...so it'd be nice to stop treating us like we're some sort of evil cult that's attacking you. We're just normal people who go to meetings to help us stay sober - that's all!

CDfm

@rojo you shouldn't feel obliged to defend whatever works for you.

And Iguana -if you have a beef with religion or the catholic church or a group or a particular study say it. God only knows how you managed to drag the catholic church and the US Supreme Court in to a thread on methods for giving up drink.

iguana

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

Quite the opposite in fact. My understanding is that AA was used as a free outlet to treat alcoholic criminals instead of locking them up as opposed to AA having any influence in the decision.

Then your understanding is wrong. The AA is hugely wealthy and pays very high salaries to their staff. Starting with Bill Wilson who was utterly destitute at the time he came up with AA. He was a fraudster in his professional life who was responsible for a lot of people's financial ruin on the run up to the Wall St Crash. He utterly destroyed many of his business associates, friends and all of wife's family on a financial level. At the point where he was in recovery this continued with him borrowing money left, right and centre and ultimately losing the Burnham (Lois's) family home when he caused for it to be re-mortgaged but never made any payments on it.

However within under about a decade he was a multi-millionaire by today's standards. He brought his old confidence trickster talents to the fore and told lie after lie to publishers, doctors and politicians to gain support and finances for his organisation. Much of the money he gained was kept for himself. He also really pushed himself greatly, revelling in the fame and notoriety, taking credit for much which he had no part in and ideas he'd stolen from others on the committee. 32 people wrote the Big Book as a committee, yet Wilson claimed sole ownership and copyright and earned many, many millions. Even today in some countries (like Germany due to the copyright infringement cases in the next post) Dr Bob Smith's family is contesting the copyright ownership). He also, as I earlier mentioned, used the meetings as a pick-up joint, using his celebrity to take advantage of a great number of vulnerable women.

And if it was a case of; ok so this man was a horrible person who did what he did through twisted intentions but what has grown from his creation is a good thing, none of his story would really matter. And in many ways that is the case, like I keep saying I think the groups and ordinary member do great work. But the organisation from on high is still run as it originated. This is really long so I'm going to start a new post.

iguana

I understand you have great faith in the organisation so this won't be easy reading but if you really want to know why I despise them so much (the leadership) read on. This is all info from the last decade, I'm typing it from hardcopy.

The national leadership of A.A., Alcoholics Anonymous World Services, Inc. (AAWS), has been committing perjury and causing grievous harm to foreign A.A. members for the "crime" of making cheap copies of old, copyright-expired versions of the Big Book available to poor people in foreign countries like Mexico, Germany, and Sweden.

In Mexico, their perjury got an innocent man — an A.A. member — sentenced to prison for a year. In Germany, they shut down a pro-A.A. web site, and sued for enough of a fortune to destroy the A.A. member who was carrying the message, as well as banning the member from ever giving away another A.A. book to anyone. And now that German A.A. member is facing paying a fine of €2.75 Million or going to prison... (The final verdict was supposed to be issued August 5, 2003, but the case is still dragging on.)

AAWS did that just to protect its own profits. The A.A. headquarters currently has $6,000,000 of cash reserves in the bank (as of their 2002 financial statement), but AAWS seems to want even more, and they are willing to even put innocent people, including A.A. members, in prison to get it.

The individual meetings are run independently, however to call themselves AA they are supposed to follow certain guidelines or the groups can risk being sued, which is similar to the German case. The quote which I have referenced many times here about how their steps rarely fail is supposed to be read at the beginning of each meeting. I have been to quite a number of open-meetings and it has always been read (at al-anon too). If a group fails to read that, they are in breach in terms of use of the name AA and can be sued for copyright theft.

The main reason they are run independently is that it keeps the organisation itself free from liability in cases of suicides, drug dealer infiltration of NA and sexual predators of the vulnerable newcomers (what's known as 13th stepping since Wilson's day).

CDFM, I brought the US Supreme court into the topic due to the pressures the AA has applied to the courts on many occasions. The Paul Cox cases from a few years back and the current ongoing issues of religious freedoms in the penal system which has been pretty big news recently. The Catholic church thing was an analogy which I qualified before writing it.

CDfm

So you get people enforcing copywrite on books written by their forebearer and you get an organisation protecting its trade name and copywritting material. Nothing daminng there really.

Is the material available for free on the internet?

You get addicts commiting suicide - it kind of goes with the territory and the sex thing well it reminds me of this joke

A young couple was golfing one day on a very exclusive course lined with million-dollar houses. On the third tee, the wife sliced her shot right through the large front window of the biggest house along the course. They walked up, knocked on the door and heard a voice say, "Come on in."

When they opened the door, they saw glass everywhere and a broken bottle lying on the floor. A man on the couch said, "Are you the people who broke my window?"

The husband began to apologize, but the man cut him off, "Actually, I want to thank you, I'm a genie who was trapped in that bottle, and your wayward shot released me. I'm allowed to grant three wishes, so what I'd like to do is give each of you one wish, and I'll keep last one for myself."

"Fantastic!" said the husband. "I want a million dollars a year for the rest of my life." "No problem," said the genie, "it's the least I can do."

"I want a house in every country in the world," said the wife. "Consider it done," said the genie, "and now for my wish. Because I've been trapped in that bottle, I haven't had sex in a really long time. My wish is to sleep with your wife."

The husband looked over at his wife and said, "Well, we did get a lot of money and all those houses...If you don't mind honey, I don't either." The wife agreed.

The genie took her upstairs and ravished her for 3 hours. After he was through, the genie looked at the wife and asked, "How old is you husband, anyway?"

"Twenty-five," said the wife.

"And he still believes in genies?"

Now I dont know what happens but unless you are really stupid you don't fall for something like that.

iguana

CDfm wrote: »

So you get people enforcing copywrite on books written by their forebearer and you get an organisation protecting its trade name and copywritting material. Nothing daminng there really.

You don't think that a 'non-profit' organisation, whose supposed purpose is to help alcoholics, having their own member sent to prison for distributing out of print books to poor, homeless alcoholics isn't damning? Really?

If they owned the copyright it might have been legal but it is sure as hell immoral. And as it happened they don't own the copyright for the books, that ownership went to Lois Wilson after her husband's death (in part, 10% was left to his favourite mistress) and she did not will that ownership to AAWS. They committed perjury in claiming ownership and have been doing for quite a long time. It's why there is so much legal wrangling as to who owns copyright, it's been ongoing for decades.

CDfm wrote: »

Is the material available for free on the internet?

No it isn't. The German group published sections online, as they believed in them and wanted to get the message out, and have been sued and at least one member faced a 7 figure fine or imprisonment. (I haven't found out the case's current status yet).

And even if it was free online that might be helpful to those with net access but it would be as helpful to the homeless of Mexico as a chocolate fireguard.

mathepac

iguana wrote: »

... however to call themselves AA they are supposed to follow certain guidelines or the groups can risk being sued, which is similar to the German case. ...

Interesting, I hadn't encountered that requirement before.

AA friends tell me that on page 565 of Alcoholics Anonymous, 3rd Edition, 1976, the Twelve Traditions, Long Form, states in part :

" ... 3. _ Our membership ought to include all who suffer from alcoholism. Hence we may refuse none who wish to recover. Nor ought A.A. membership ever depend on money or conformity. Any two or three alcoholics gathered together for sobriety may call themselves an A.A. group, provided that, as a group, they have no other affiliation ... " Copyright A.A. World Services, Inc.

The reason I've used the 3rd Edition is that you seem to have access to a copy. It has of course been superseded, but that statement still appears in the 4th edition AFAIK and has not been withdrawn.

To me the simple statement quoted above seems crystal clear and unambiguous, however you state things have changed.

CDfm

iguana wrote: »

You don't think that a 'non-profit' organisation, whose supposed purpose is to help alcoholics, having their own member sent to prison for distributing out of print books to poor, homeless alcoholics isn't damning? Really?

Actually -no -even the catholic mass leaflets on Sunday are copywrited.

If they owned the copyright it might have been legal but it is sure as hell immoral. And as it happened they don't own the copyright for the books, that ownership went to Lois Wilson after her husband's death (in part, 10% was left to his favourite mistress) and she did not will that ownership to AAWS. They committed perjury in claiming ownership and have been doing for quite a long time. It's why there is so much legal wrangling as to who owns copyright, it's been ongoing for decades.

That sort of happens in all organisations and I seem to remember a singer suing Disney when DVds and CDs came out.

Reproducing copywrited material without permission and I dont know the case -but normally -you get asked not to do it again. If you dont cease and desist -you get hardball. Thats life.

Even Sesame Street a PBS show in the States sues.

You cant just decide to ignore legal niceties whenever you want and if ome person does it it makes a precedent etc.

iguana

CDfm wrote: »

Reproducing copywrited material without permission

The material used in both cases were first and second editions which are public domain. The AA book's copyright registration was allowed to lapse both on the First Edition and Second Edition. It has been proven that indeed, there never was a valid copyright on the AA book. Several independent Intellectual Property lawyers were consulted and they have found that since the original Multilith Manuscript was published, distributed and sold without any notice of copyright or notice that it was a review or loan copy, it was immediately placed in the public domain since early 1939. According to the Copyright Act of 1909, any publication that was published without these notices forfeited the right of copyright. That's why I wrote that the AAWS perjured themselves.

And even if they did have legal right on their side they are supposed to be in the business of helping alcoholics. Any organisation truly interested in that would never ever have recovering alcoholics, their own members, sent to jail for trying to help other alcoholics. It's not how people who's priority is getting people sober would work.

From what I can see about said case, the German guy in question had actually changed some of the wording (removing any spiritual references) while still using the AA name and this is why they moved against him.