Addiction in America

[Not Afraid]

Originally Posted by Alex

No, honestly it isn't. I'm not at all saying that people who go to AA don't get sober, I'm saying there is little evidence that people who go to AA get sober at a significantly different success rate than people who don't go to AA.

You know what's odd.....I can name only ONE person - of all of the thousands of people I know - that got sober without AA. I know lots of sober people who went to AA and i know lots of drunks. But, only one who did it another way.

[Alex]

And I know quite a few people who just reached a point in their life and stopped drinking despite years of near daily excessive consumption. My dad drank about two six packs a day and several bottles of Kahlua a week (gross) until he was 40 woke up one day and said "I'm sick of feeling like **** every morning" and that was that.

But that is anecdotal too and has no more value than the people you know.

The experts, when they study these things find similar results regardless of method. And, regardless of method, the results over the short term are poor and requires years upon years before you even get a majority of successes.

There is a huge perception bias. At any given time the core of an AA meeting are going to be the success cases. If you have a group and every week a group of ten people gathers. If there are two new people who show up, make it two meetings, then disappear and are replaced by two new people who do the same, but also a core group of 8 people who stay sober for the full year, attending every week, you are going to say "wow, everybody I know has found great success with AA" but tend to forget about the 52 people who completely failed to find any help.



I am still curious, would you be ok with a high school teacher saying this to his class:

I want every student in this room to pray to a god, any god you want because I think this will help you do better on tests; if you really find that objectionable I suppose you don't have to but I find it really helps.

If you're fine with that, then we definitely just have to disagree. If not, what is different about AA that is ok for a judge to require me to go listen to someone say it to me?

[€uroMeinke]

Originally Posted by Alex

I am still curious, would you be ok with a high school teacher saying this to his class:

I guess I agree with this ax your grinding, but honestly I kind of put it up there with the whole "God" in the pledge of allegiance thing, and the "In God We Trust" motto emblazoned on our money - that stuff shouldn't be there either, but as a pragmatic atheist I just chalk it up for living in predominantly Christian culture

[Alex]

By the way, I hope nobody is getting upset by this. I am enjoying the discussion and while I am honestly expressing my view I hope nobody thinks I am just trolling or trying to hurt feelings.

I know it is a very personal issue for a lot of people here.

[Not Afraid]

Bottom line - taking a test is not a matter of life or death. No, I wouldn't be ok with it. However, I'm perfectly fine with requiring people convicted of a DUI to go to AA. I'm not saying it is logical.

BTW, the Judge who is responsible for this whole thing is a local guy - Judge Leon Emerson. He's quite an interesting man. I wish I could in writing what we discussed IRL. He has a pretty great (IMHO) opinion on this whole deal.

[Alex]

Chris,

I agree on the pledge of allegiance and in god we trust on coins. But at no point am I legally required to participate in the pledge of allegiance (and I haven't said it myself since 2nd grade).

But if I were told by a judge that I could either go to jail or have the pledge of allegiance recited to me every day then I would take a much stronger view about the inclusion of god.

If ever there is clear case law saying that non-12 step programs must be offered (I am ok with someone selecting AA among options) made available then 70% of my objection will go away.

I'll still argue with claims that AA is particularly effective but it will be purely academic like arguing about homeopathy. I'll have a point of view but don't really care what people decide to do on their own.

[Alex]

The judge who is responsible for what whole thing?

Just to be clear, you agree it has some religious element, since it is over the line for what would be acceptable in schools (if it had none, it should be fine in a school too) but that the benefits of AA, in your view, outweigh the negative of forcing that level of religious content on someone.

If so, we've made progress. We're no longer debating an axiom. I still disagree but it is on a completely different level.

[Not Afraid]

You know, if it works and does less harm than NOT doing it, then who are we to argue. Personally, I'd rather be sober than have my liver being pecked away by the vulture of alcohol. I'd rather people NOT drive when drunk. I'd rather friends no ruin their life by drinking too much. But, really, all I care about is me.

[Not Afraid]

Originally Posted by Alex

The judge who is responsible for what whole thing?

Just to be clear, you agree it has some religious element, since it is over the line for what would be acceptable in schools (if it had none, it should be fine in a school too) but that the benefits of AA, in your view, outweigh the negative of forcing that level of religious content on someone.

If so, we've made progress. We're no longer debating an axiom. I still disagree but it is on a completely different level.

The judge who developed the "AA as a requirement" program.

I still wouldn't call it religion. I grew up as a fundamentalist Christian - now THAT is religion. AA has NOTHING on Christianity as I've experienced it.

There are also MANY MANY atheists who have gotten sober through AA. I think it is possible to be an atheist and still get benefits from the program of AA.

The "Big Book" also has a chapter devoted to agnostics. not QUITE the same, but remember this was written in the "dark ages". Nor am I a scholar of AA texts. I just do what works for me - which is better than the alternative.

[Alex]

You do realize that the chapter on Agnostics essentially says "don't be sad if you're agnostic, once you find god it will get better"? It does not say you can be agnostic and successful it says that by casting aside your agnosticism you will find success. Agnoticism and atheism are repeatedly described as unreasonable, ignorant, prejudice.

I had never read that chapter of the Big Book (I've read other parts) but I do think that it rather supports my point of view. Now I'm even less inclined towards it being mandatory.

Just some highlights, bolding mine.

Yes, we of agnostic temperament have had these thoughts and experiences. Let us make haste to reassure you. We found that as soon as we were able to lay aside prejudice and express even a willingness to believe in a Power greater than ourselves, we commenced to get results, even though it was impossible for any of us to fully define or comprehend that Power, which is God.


Much to our relief, we discovered we did not need to consider another's conception of God. Our own conception, however inadequate, was sufficient to make the approach and to effect a contact with Him. As soon as we admitted the possible existence of a Creative Intelligence, a Spirit of the Universe underlying the totality of things, we began to be possessed of a new sense of power and direction, provided we took other simple steps. We found that God does not make too hard terms with those who seek Him. To us, the Realm of Spirit is broad, roomy, all inclusive; never exclusive or forbidding to those who earnestly seek. It is open, we believe, to all men.

Besides a seeming inability to accept much on faith, we often found ourselves handicapped by obstinacy, sensitiveness, and unreasoning prejudice. Many of us have been so touchy that even casual reference to spiritual things make us bristle with antagonism. This sort of thinking had to be abandoned. Though some of us resisted, we found no great difficulty in casting aside such feelings. Faced with alcoholic destruction, we soon became as open minded on spiritual matters as we had tried to be on other questions. In this respect alcohol was a great persuader. It finally beat us into a state of reasonableness. Sometimes this was a tedious process; we hope no one else will prejudiced for as long as some of us were.

We, who have traveled this dubious path, beg you to lay aside prejudice, even against organized religion. We have learned that whatever the human frailties of various faiths may be, those faiths have given purpose and direction to millions. People of faith have a logical idea of what life is all about. Actually, we used to have no reasonable conception whatever. We used to amuse ourselves by cynically dissecting spiritual beliefs and practices when we might have observed that many spiritually-minded persons of all races, colors, and creeds were demonstrating a degree of stability, happiness and usefulness which we should have sought ourselves. Instead, we looked at the human defects of these people, and sometimes used their shortcomings as a basis of wholesale condemnation. We talked of intolerance, while we were intolerant ourselves. We missed the reality and the beauty of the forest because we were diverted by the ugliness of some its trees. We never gave the spiritual side of life a fair hearing.

When we became alcoholics, crushed by a self-imposed crises we could not postpone or evade, we had to fearlessly face the proposition that either God is everything or else He is nothing. God either is or He isn't. What was our choice to be?

Actually we were fooling ourselves, for deep down in every man, woman, and child, is the fundamental idea of God. It may be obscured by calamity, by pomp, by worship of other things, but in some form or other it is there. For faith in a Power greater than ourselves, and miraculous demonstrations of that power in human lives, are facts as old as man himself.