The point of AA is “You” seeking an alternative life...oh, and it’s free...
unless you discount the very real pain of introspect and striving toward some sort of redeemed life...
This should be an interresting thread.
The irrationality of Alcoholics Anonymous??? What the heck??
I thought AA had achieved a great deal of success.
While I understand that not everybody is helped by AA, isn’t it a stretch to say its an irrational program?
So just because this article cites some other methods which help addicts, how does it follow that AA is not a good treatment method???
I say whatever works is good.
I quit drinking on my own because I made the decision to quit and struggled through.
AA simply shares experience, strength and hope of those who have benefited. The Big Book states that “some day” science and medicine may find a way to make problem drinkers change to normal drinkers.
Speaking from experience, it is a pretty good way to get better.
It’s a matter of learning skills to call on in the future and not a guarantee of absolute success. I spent 8 years in Al-Anon (for friends and family of alcoholics). That program suggests that you keep on coming back even when/if your alcoholic had quit drinking. 8 years was enough and the meeting I considered my home meeting started becoming unhealthy. They do that sometimes although 8 years was a good run and I’m grateful for the time I spent there. I continue to use the lessons I learned there.
Hmm...so now self-proclaimed "experts" are claiming social control based on the collectivization of medicine. Whoever could have seen this coming?
The article lists what should be non-controversial facts. That AA isn’t for everyone. That other methods may work for some people. And that some people don’t like certain aspects of AA. That’s all true.
The problem with the article is that it starts with the flawed premise that people in AA claim that other methods don’t work, or that everyone who has a problem with alcohol has to follow AA and completely abstain. That then sets up the criticisms of AA in the article, as if AA is somehow preventing problem drinkers from getting help. That line of criticism completely misses the point.
AA is one way for people to stop drinking that, based on experience, has helped millions of people. The other treatments mentioned in the article may or may not work. They certainly don’t have the long history of proof that AA has. And the idea of suggesting to alcoholics that they can go back to controlled drinking rather than abstaining is dangerous.
the third, fifth, and sixth steps in any 12 step program all appeal to God. that’s their problem, right there.
From Wikipedia's entry on AA:
As summarized by the American Psychological Association, the initial 12 steps involved the following:If you like your Higher Power, you can keep your Higher Power.
- admitting that one cannot control one's alcoholism, addiction or compulsion;
- recognizing a higher power that can restore sanity;
Alcoholics Anonymous is not the only path to sobriety.
If a problem drinker wants to try something other than the tried and true AA route, please go ahead and do so. We in AA still will be here doing what we do . . . staying sober. If someone wants to join us, please do. We have plenty of chairs available.
DOS: July 26, 2003
Gabrielle Glaser is a liberal that wrote a book about women and drinking, Her Best Kept Secret. She’s pushing her book.
AA does not claim to be the only possible way to stop drinking. All AA promises is that if you do what is suggested, you don’t have to drink.
Part of the problem with this article is that it plays loose and fast with the definition of alcoholism (or alcohol dependency or alcohol abuse). The author argues that total abstinence may not be necessary or appropriate for people who drink in a heavy, but controlled, manner. But AA would not classify those people as alcoholics. AA is geared toward people at the severe end of the alcohol abuse spectrum.
People who want to bash AA should put the program into historical context. AA was developed as a response to hundreds of years of abject failure by the medical profession to offer any solution to alcoholism. Now, maybe the medical profession has some new pill that will cure alcoholism. If so, that’s great, but please understand that we have heard that before.
One of my relatives was an alcoholic, and successfully beat his problem by attending AA. As far as I know, he was sober for the rest of his life. He was even able to eat in restaurants with family members, and avoid alcohol while others drank wine, beer, etc. AA seemed to help him make a big change and stick with it.
In a different example, a close friend of mine was an alcoholic, and was given the choice of losing his job or successfully completing rehab at a good detox clinic. He did the clinical rehab, and as far as I know, was sober until he retired. But when he retired, he started drinking again. Within a week he had been arrested for an alcohol-related offense, and just over a year later he died of an internal hemorrhage.
I believe it’s not just important to get help to beat the addiction, but to also be successfully encouraged to stay sober. I imagine it’s not easy, and what works for one person might not work for another. But I know of at least this one case where AA made a difference.
I have enjoyed 34 clean and sober years because of AA, I tried treatment first. My son has enjoyed 12 years so it is a good example.
It does.
Yes, if Ms Gabrielle Glazer heard about this program, her head, like liberal heads all over, would explode!