[LovedSinner]

I do not want to be drawn into an argument, since I do not have the time. But I am writing on the small chance that I can help someone.

But for those of you who support AA, research has shown that the disease theory of addiction that AA promotes is one of the most harmful things possible in recovery. Even for people who are not in AA, studies show that believing in the disease model is a strong predictor of failure.

This does not mean that all critics of AA are atheists. In fact, the AA mantra that one is powerless to beat their addiction goes against what many Christians would call free will.

Talking about and emphasizing free will in beating addictions is one thing that will improve one’s odds. It makes sense too, as people rationalize away the fact that they are using drugs, alcohol, whatever. It is hard to stop, but ultimately the person addicted must be the one to make the decision to stop. Seems obvious, but few talk about it. I think that is what this author was saying.

AA’s step 1 is “We admitted we were powerless over alcohol— that our lives had become unmanageable”. This de-emphasizes free will and is harmful.

I hope I have helped somebody who knows somebody who needs help.

[Old North State]

It is hard to stop, but ultimately the person addicted must be the one to make the decision to stop ...
Well, yes that's true because its simply a tautology. Who else could stop people with free will? The question isn't who, but how. What makes sense to me it that different methods work for different people. And research has not shown that the ‘disease theory’ is harmful. Absent a more successful method, how could it? If it fails, and the addict is still addicted, how is he worse off than when he started? What is the sure-fire alternative that he missed? There is no organic downside to the theory, you are not sicker for having tried it. You can say it lacks efficacy, but empirically, that is about it.