Quite possibly because people will do for others what they won't do for themselves. A person whose lack of self love has led them down this path in the first place (eg: willingness to do something they KNOW isn't good for them, but it's their choice to make and they make it) might not care enough about themselves to face the struggle. But when you bring "other" into it, now they acknowledge how their behavior affects those who do not have control over (the original person's) behavior. Now they have some responsibility to others whom they may love more than themselves, or at least not want to be the cause of harm to others.

Can't atheists' "higher power" be logic? Natural law?

Hear, hear. I have seen the good it's done, and that is good enough for me.

Also. "Fraud" is an inflammatory word, Alex; any number of disclaimers will not disguise the fact that you jumped into a discussion with a large number of AA members, expressing your disdain for their choice of recovery. Surely, you may be enjoying the discussion-- but when you use that kind of inflammatory language you come off as petulant and, yes, trollish. If you hadn't wondered that yourself, you wouldn't have used the word first.

You know - I'm kind of uncomfortable that this discussion has been more about AA/12-step programs instead of addiction, since the best people to talk about AA are the one's who have been in it and to comment about it breaks their anonymity.

I'm not sure what value a discussion about AA between people outside of it really has.

*****

That said I find addiction baffling as it is one of those things that's hard to define. I can match drink for drink with an alcoholic and yet the effect is quite different for me, so it's not a measure of how much.

It's easy to point to people and speculate about them being an addict (whether or not they agree), but what really is the marker?

A traditional definition is when the substance/activity starts to interfere with the rest of your life, and yet I bet we can all point to "functional alcoholics" we've know in our lives.

Maybe I need to read the article mentioned in the OP.

Why, yes! Good point.

I just want to comment on Penn & Teller... I used to find them entertaining; back when they actually entertained. For that last few years, all they seem to want to do is debunk everything. I now find them strident, humorless, and boring.

I have very little patience with people who take their beliefs to the extreme - be they religion, politics, or whatever. Extremism and narrow-mindedness in the name of rational thought is just as bad as extremism and narrow-mindedness in the name of irrationality. It is just as impossible to change the mind of someone who fervently dis-believes as it is to change the mind of a fervent believer; because neither have an open mind. Dogma, is dogma, is dogma.

I've been meaning to say that your icon choice in the OP was bloody brilliant!

Hmmm, I didn't consider that bringing up the subject of addiction around members of Alcoholics Anonymous might defeat the anonymity of some folks. Not that it's been any kind of secret as far as those who have responded thus far, to their credit.

Openness and honesty and willingness to share among friends are wonderful attributes, and I loathe the thought of such people coming under attack. If it was not meant that way, please nonetheless modify the approach, Alex. I'm still, I regret to say, a little touchy for coming under attack as a result of my own openness and sharing.


I've said it before ... but one of the things I most like about the LoT, and other forms of non-i.r.l. communication ... is the ability to share deeper stuff than what's likely to come up in person.

This is different from previous incarnations of friendships in my life ... ironically, because of drugs. My pals and I used to trip on LSD quite frequently ... and, roughly a third of the time, we'd end up sitting around talking ... revealing deep stuff to each other, and gaining much understanding and groking of our friends and ourselves.


Nowadays, I see my friends in the real world almost exclusively in fun, social situations. Deep discussions happen far less frequently.

To use an example ... I see Chernabog Joe less often than I'd like. And when I do, we are having a good time with a light mood ... and though I'd like to know more about his previously dire situation, I never break the mood to ask what it was like to be a depraved junkie, ya know?

I've learned more in this thread thru his candid and brave revelations of his junkie thought processes than I have in dozens of times seeing him in person.


The LoT is great for light fluff, and it's great once in a while for deep stuff. It's ok to have a back-and-forth discussion, but let's please not stifle the ability to share some deep stuff. Speaking from experience, people may be less likely to continue sharing if they perceive they are being attacked for what they reveal.



I've never done this before, but I'm going to quote from a mojo comment I received, without revealing the mojoer's identity of course.

Well, It certainly wasn't my intention to stifle conversation - I just found myself (and others) in a position of speaking with authority over an issue where really I have none.

Of course, we all can speak with authority about our own experiences, but as far as AA goes, I am more observer than participant and I think those two experiences are quite different.

I'm happy when people can speak with candor here, but on the flip side I want to make sure we respect people's privacy - while I like the closeness of our community, it still is a public forum and accessible to anyone who's willing to do a google search.

I have a very addictive personality. My dad is an alchoholic, and my sister and I are sure we got the "gene." I have had more than my fair share of addictions. I think that AA does a lot of good for a lot of people. At one point my mom was going to Al-anon. The most important thing she learned from that was that his alchoholism was not her fault, and out of her control.

When I was 18 I tried crank (meth) for the first time. That was all it took. I was hooked from the first line. I have very little sinus tissue left because of it. I never shot up or smoked it.

When I was 20 I woke up one day and looked in the mirror. I took a long look. I decided I didn't like who I had become. I liked that I was thinner, but I could admit I looked like crap. That morning I flushed everything down the toilet and walked away from that lifestyle. I stopped hanging around with those people, made new friends. I focused on my school work and made the Dean's list.

I have no tollerance for Team Challenge. I know of only 3 people that have remained drug free after 6 months.


For me it has been 19 years since I did the flushing. I have never, ever regretted it. Yeah, I smoke cigarettes, but that is all I will smoke. I have no problem with what other people do, but it is just not a lifestyle I ever want to go back to. I also have a wonderful young man in my life and I need to be a good role model for him.

And so, frankly, it doesn't help to disregard the (weak) anonymity of screen names. It's not a giant deal, but constantly referring to people by their real names is, while not a taboo, sort of poor internet manners.

I just made the same minor faux pas in a post above - and in a tight community like this, I don't really think it's that big a deal. But still.



I also sometimes post in a much smaller, also very tight internet community message board ... one where real names are used pretty much exclusively. It's kinda nice that way, very friendly-seeming ... the acknowlegment that we are all pals in real life.

BUT ... I once posted something there that got me in big trouble. My first name and rather iconic last name were all over that site, and my name then got published in newspapers with my troublesome internet quotes, and I started getting flak for it in the real world. Not Good.



So perhaps in threads about addicts, or just generally as custom here, we can try to stick primarily to using screen names, huh? If you want to choose to use your real name for your screen name, that's your perrogative, but I think it's best to respect the wishes of others to maintain their minor anonymity.

(When I cross-posted an el jay entry recently, I went thru the trouble of changing everyone's real names to their LoT screen names. It was a silly exercise, but I was observing LoT custom nonetheless.)