I don't see AA as the only option to recover from alcoholism.

There are many options and treatment facilities.

All of the AA people that I have spoken with over the years also recognize this.

AA is simply one route that some people have chosen.

Quote
Sirtriz
I was, until recently, involved in Al-Anon for about 3 years due to an ex-girlfriend who is a recovering alcoholic (and now involved in Landmark wouldn't you know it).

Easy segue, I'm afraid, from 12 step programs to LGATs. That was my experience, anyway. I've been looking back at clues for things I did that may have "set me up" to swallow the LGAT lie. I think that several years in a 12 step program, although never wholeheartedly because I had too many questions, may have helped shape me such that the LGAT went down easier. I had my doubts about the LGAT too but the LGAT was seductive in ways the 12 step program wasn't, for me. The 12 step program made its promises too, but for some reason it didn't quite hook me. I tried, but there was something fundamentally illogical about it.

I thought there was something wrong with "turning my will over", that my will is bad and useless. That's too all-or-nothing for my tastes, however, I think it prepped me to turn my power over to the LGAT. Isn't this a handy way to control people? Feels that way to me.

I take issue with the "I'm powerless" mantra too. I think there is a place for humility but the 12 step program takes it to extremes, such that followers are, like LGATers, taught to doubt and criticize themselves just enough to keep them in a one-down position, yet still going back ("keep coming back"), hoping for the "solution".

Also, in reading through some old 12 step stuff, I read about the pink cloud high, and the author spoke about striving forever more to get that high again. Reminded me of the LGAT high and how followers stay hooked, hoping to feel that initial high again.

I agree with sceptic. After reading here about LGAT's, I see many similarities between the way AA is delivered in many areas and the "programming" sold by LGAT's.
The only big differences I see are AA's insistance on believing in a higher power and that fact that at AA you don't have to pay to be "programmed".

rrmoderator:

Tell me why it is acceptable for the courts to force attendance at meetings of this religious organization (some say spiritual) on any American citizen?

Would you please adress this question?

Barbara:

Again, I don't receive complaints from families and spouses regarding AA as I have repeatedly (almost daily) about LGATs.

I have not heard of anyone being ordered by a judge to attend AA.

If someone is charged with drunk driving or some other offense related to excessive drinking and/or alcoholism, it would not be uncommon for some form of treatment to be ordered as a condition of release during sentencing by the court.

That is, if they are not sent to jail and given probation the judge may want the person to attend counseling and receive treatment regarding their behavior, which has put the public at risk and/or caused damages.

AA might be one option considered by a court, though it seems to me that a person appearing for sentencing and hoping for release rather than jail time, might easily offer another treatment alternative through a substance abuse community program, hospital or treatment center.

Cost might be a mitigating factor.

This would be something to discuss with an attorney and each case would have its own specific situation regarding surrounding circumstances and individual history.

Thank you for replying.

Locally, the only option offered to court ordered alcoholics and addicts is evaluation at a county drug program, which sends people to AA, or attendance at AA meetings. No other treatment possibilities are offered.
Not all have been convicted of drunk driving.
(It is probably true that they are not actually forced to go to meetings; they can probably choose to go to jail instead. I have not had this experience myself, so I'm not sure.)

I realize that this is probably financially motivated.
What concerns me is the issue of being coerced to attend functions that are religious in nature. I have other objections to the 12 steps, but this one I feel confident about from a legal standpoint.

Those who have been forced to attend meetings do not necessarily have a positive attitude towards recovery, and can cause much disruption to those who truly seek it. I have personally witnessed this, and have also been told this by several AA members, but cannot post articles and references to support my statement at this time.

If AA was just one of several options, it would not bother me as much.
Surely there are alternatives to relying on "God and a room full of drunks".
The percentage of people who actually get and stay sober in AA, (or out), is not very high.
Why is it so objectionable to AA members and others to suggest the need for re-evaluation of the 12-step programs?
There are problems with them.
This unwillingness to tolerate criticism is one of the main reasons I find AA "cultish".

Barbara:

Regarding court proceedings this is something that must be discussed on a case-by-case basis.

That is, each court proceeding has its own situation and context.

AA may be the only option for a judge regarding some type of program if the person before the court cannot afford to pay for any treatment or counseling alternative.

This would be something for that person to discuss with their attorney.

Any constitutional issue regarding civil rights might be discussed with the ACLU or some other advocacy group concerned with this area.

In order to discuss such a matter you would need to cite specific court cases and identify individual situations that you think illustrate abuse of judicial system regarding AA.

Despite assurances from rrmoderator that he gets no complaints from families and relatives about loved ones in AA, there are many educated experts in the field who do find AA to be "cult-like". For instance, Jeffrey Schaler,Phd.

[www.schaler.net]

Quote

There are ways of applying this idea to individuals under the "spell cast by others" (Becker 1973). One way of testing the cult nature of a group is by challenging the ideology binding the group together. We can discover something about the nature of a group by how well its members tolerate opposition to the ideology that holds the group together. How well do members tolerate difference of opinion, opinion that challenges the very ideological heart of the group?

Extensive research supports the idea that addiction is a voluntary process, a behavior that is better explained by individual psychological and environmental factors, than physiology and the chemical properties of drugs, (Alexander 1987, 1990).

[b:34bde41c76]Presenting those findings to people holding opposing points of view, i.e., addiction is a disease characterized by "loss of control" (Jellinek 1960), often elicits a vituperative response. That response aroused the writer's curiosity as to the cult-like nature certain groups within the addiction field hold dearly.[/b:34bde41c76] The bolder the presentation of ideas in opposition to the prevailing disease-model ideology, the clearer the characterizations of criticism directed back in return. Patterns of response are clear.

Schaler also opposes the disease theory of addiction. Viewing addiction as a behavioral problem does little to let the alcoholic off the hook; rather, it holds them more responsible for their actions.
This should, but in actuality does not, fit in well with stated 12-step attitudes towards personal responsibility.

[www.schaler.net]

Quote

If people are willing to break the law to get money to buy drugs, they should be punished for breaking the law. Drug use is not a valid excuse for law-breaking. Many illegal drug dealers are neither violent nor drug users. Why do they need treatment? Treatment for what? They're in jail for illegal, consensual business transactions.

As they say in AA, "The first thing to go is the truth." The truth is that drug users complain and lie about how they can't control their behavior. The truth is there's no such thing as an involuntary behavior. The truth is that comparing drug users to people with real diseases is cruel to people with real diseases.

[b:34bde41c76]A final point to consider is that treatment for addiction is increasingly viewed by courts as a religious activity. When the state entangles itself in treatment, it violates the free exercise and establishment clauses of the First Amendment.[/b:34bde41c76]

He also discusses treatment in terms of our legal rights, as does Peele.
Both men believe, as do I, that our right to religious freedom is worth defending.

[www.peele.net]

Quote

The notion that drug and alcohol abuse are inevitably progressive, a holdover from the Temperance view, is one example of how modern addictionology is really moralistic and theological rather than scientific and pragmatic.

********************
In response to rrmoderator's suggestion that I cite individual court cases, I'll try to keep this short:
[www.fed-soc.org]

Article citing first amendment cases and opinions by Jendi B. Reiter, attorney and clerk to a justice in the Appellate Division of the First Department in the New York Supreme Court.

Quote

New York Penal Law § 65.10(2)(a) authorizes courts to order offenders to participate in alcohol or substance abuse treatment programs as a condition of probation or parole. Quite recently, this seemingly uncontroversial requirement has been limited by successful Establishment Clause challenges to forced participation in Alcoholics Anonymous programs, which have significant religious content.
Warner v. Orange County Dep't of Probation ("Warner II"), 93 Civ. 1544, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9300 (S.D.N.Y. June 27, 1997);
Griffin v. Coughlin, 649 N.Y.S. 903 (1996).

There are several other cases, including the Supreme Court's test of the 1st amendment establishment clause in Lemon v. Kurtzman
Reiter also adresses cases involving AA, the courts, and freedom of speech.

Further elaboration on these important court cases can be found here:
[www.law.cornell.edu]

(I do not feel that I have the right to divulge information about people I know personally who were required to attend AA meetings as a condition of probation. )

I had a family member who was ordered to AA by a judge. Not NA, but AA even though the problem was prescription drugs. What a waste of everyones time. There was no other option. They also had been given time served so it was not a question of AA or jail.

I attended meetings with this person. They were told, in slogans, to shut up, to fake it til they made it (ie, keep going until you believed it), lovebombed and so on. I went to meetings due to their problem and it was the same.

I was ostrized from all the people there simply because I stopped returning. Near the end I was told that I would end up in jails or institutions or death for taking a small amount of prescribed anxiety mediction for a legitmate conditions (stress due to all the problems caused my parent's arrest and the 12 steps).

Do I believe the disease model? To a certain extent yes I do. I also believe that some things like CBT had be helpful as well.

I was told so many negative things that I am still getting over it. I mean things that attacked my core self-esteem. I wsa told if I wasn't progressing it must all be my fault. I had a sponsor who was a 'winner' even though she hadn't had but a year of clean time telling me what to do and how my prescripton to antidepressants made me eligible for NA, and many other stories.

Hopefully someday I will be able to talk about all of this. Tonight I am too emotionally exausted to relieve the pain. I will just say that I still have to catch my thoughts and retrain them from the self-defeating words that were drilled into my head, and I only attended a dozen or so meetings.

For me it wasn't the religious aspect at all I had trouble with, it was the way I was treated from lovebombing to being told I couldn't share in meetings because I had used a precribed non-narcotic within 24 hours before the meetings. So many things in these groups were cult-like FOR ME.

As for my mother, small changes are being made as she dropped the steps and started CBT herself.

It's interesting that your story is so similar to that of my sister. At the time she was in AA, none of us wanted to say anything negative because [b:38352e3888]she[/b:38352e3888] said she needed the program and she had had so many problems with substance abuse previously. She spouted slogans continuously, which we all found annoying.

She did seem unnecessarily confused and depressed at the time, however, and had actually started harming herself (in small ways) after a year or so in the program. I did not find this out until later, though.

When she began to separate herself from AA and NA, and learn to stay clean and sober without meetings, she began to talk about what had happened to her there.
It was difficult for me to really comprehend the depth of her confusion and disillusionment.
She swears AA brainwashed her, and not in a good way.
Love-bombing, constant reinforcement of a negative self image, and stop-think techniques were used.

(She was very suicidal for a while, I remember that.
She told me that she recovered from thoughts of suicide only when she decided that [b:38352e3888]anger[/b:38352e3888] had served her well in the past, and became furious at these people who were trying to hold her down.
Anger is considered to be the killer in the 12 step programs, but my sister swears it saved her from them by pulling her out of her AA-induced pit).

I went to meetings with my sister, and found them very cultish.
I did not want to be negative about them, however, as I really wanted to see her do well.
Later, my brother was court-ordered to meetings, and he relates similar stories of members projecting a negative image onto him, and members using him for free labor, etc.
He, like my sister, also became very confused about "God's will", and spent a lot of time obsessing over this.

Both my parents had been to meetings at one point when I was a child, but stopped suddenly. This was right after they brought an alcoholic man home to our house to live with us at the insistence of a "therapist", who I suspect was an AA sponsor.
Neither one drank to any extremes after this, as far as I can remember, but they did keep liquor in the house, and had an occasional drink.

Neither parent wanted to get involved when my sister was going through her AA crisis. My father did tell her he thought she was in a "bad group".
(I found out about their own involvement in AA much later.)

I am still trying to sort out the things my sister told me about AA. She is very astute, psychologically speaking, and I'm sure she knows what she's talking about.
[b:38352e3888]She tells me that she got a lot out of AA, but the price was too high and almost included her demise.[/b:38352e3888]
She seems fine now, very much like she used to be but without the craziness of drugs and drinking, but it has been many years since her last meeting.
I watched her recover her confidence after leaving AA, and it took a long time.

If people attending AA are being criticised for taking prescribed medication, that might as well be Scientology talking.

As far as I know that isn't an official AA/NA viewpoint though, so must be just destructive individuals operating within it (as they can also be found everywhere else.)

My experiences with AA were not particularly good. There did seem to be a lot of emphasis on how bad, rubbish people we were, as evidenced in the stories of terrible things we had done as drinkers.

I only went once. When circumstances in my life got happier (moved to a city to be near my partner, was put on psychiatric medication that didn't have the side-effect of extreme anxiety I got with a previous med) any excessive drinking just fell away.

AA does work for a lot of people though, or so it's said.
Love
Kath