Question for Alcoholics Anonymous experts.
Posted by:
ughaibu
()
Date: August 03, 2006 10:42PM
There has been some mention of court rulings requiring attendance of Alcoholics Anonymous as a release condition, can somebody provide more information about this, please. Specifically, in which countries, under which provisions of law, how Alcoholics Anonymous was classified for the purpose and how restricting the options to this group was justified.
Question for Alcoholics Anonymous experts.
Posted by:
barabara
()
Date: August 03, 2006 11:28PM
I would suggest you follow the links given on the AA threads.
Question for Alcoholics Anonymous experts.
Posted by:
IndieQueen
()
Date: August 04, 2006 12:38AM
Have a look here:
[www.law.duke.edu]
I've read many personal accounts of such things happening as well, but I don't have a link for them at the moment.
[www.law.duke.edu]
I've read many personal accounts of such things happening as well, but I don't have a link for them at the moment.
Question for Alcoholics Anonymous experts.
Posted by:
ughaibu
()
Date: August 04, 2006 05:04AM
IndieQueen: Thanks.
Question for Alcoholics Anonymous experts.
Posted by:
barabara
()
Date: August 04, 2006 09:35AM
These have already been posted several times, but you can find some info at these sites.
[www.peele.net]
[www.law.cornell.edu]
[www.fed-soc.org]
Official AA policy:
[www.alcoholics-anonymous.org];
There are a lot of opinions on why treartment options via court referrals are primarily limitd to 12-step programs in the US.
Most people seem to believe the reasons are financial.
I don't know about other countries.
You'll have to do some googling to get your answers.
[www.peele.net]
[www.law.cornell.edu]
[www.fed-soc.org]
Official AA policy:
[www.alcoholics-anonymous.org];
There are a lot of opinions on why treartment options via court referrals are primarily limitd to 12-step programs in the US.
Most people seem to believe the reasons are financial.
I don't know about other countries.
You'll have to do some googling to get your answers.
Question for Alcoholics Anonymous experts.
Posted by:
upsidedownnewspaper
()
Date: August 04, 2006 12:19PM
Quote
ughaibu
There has been some mention of court rulings requiring attendance of Alcoholics Anonymous as a release condition, can somebody provide more information about this, please. Specifically, in which countries, under which provisions of law, how Alcoholics Anonymous was classified for the purpose and how restricting the options to this group was justified.
Yes, this would be interesting reading. It wouldn't contribute to the argument that AA is a cult, though.
Question for Alcoholics Anonymous experts.
Posted by:
ughaibu
()
Date: August 04, 2006 01:20PM
Barabara: Thanks for the further links, I'll look into them over the weekend.
Upsidedownnewspaper: The question of whether or not AA is a cult, according to conventional definitions, isn't necessarily important for this thread, the matter of concern is support, by the courts, of a group that insist their members espouse a deviant reality based on a concept of god. Deviant realities disrupt the commonality of conception (of reality) required by humans for effective communication, promotion of deviant realities is by nature essentially anti-social behaviour and groups that insist their members adopt deviant realities are committing an act of violence against those members. If the member is informed and consenting, this only amounts to a social phenomenon, but if the member is coerced by the courts the situation is highly questionable.
Upsidedownnewspaper: The question of whether or not AA is a cult, according to conventional definitions, isn't necessarily important for this thread, the matter of concern is support, by the courts, of a group that insist their members espouse a deviant reality based on a concept of god. Deviant realities disrupt the commonality of conception (of reality) required by humans for effective communication, promotion of deviant realities is by nature essentially anti-social behaviour and groups that insist their members adopt deviant realities are committing an act of violence against those members. If the member is informed and consenting, this only amounts to a social phenomenon, but if the member is coerced by the courts the situation is highly questionable.
Question for Alcoholics Anonymous experts.
Posted by:
barabara
()
Date: August 05, 2006 01:39AM
[b:97c7a8f08f]ughaibu:[/b:97c7a8f08f]
[b:97c7a8f08f]Would you be willing to elucidate?[/b:97c7a8f08f]
I have never heard of this concept of "deviant reality", but find it very interesting.
Do you have any references to this, or any links to written material on the subject?
What portions of AA dogma and literature do you feel promotes a "deviant reality"?
I would think that portions of the Big Book do.
Have you appied your theory to "the promises", and those parts of "working with others" which say that God will protect the AA member from harm if his motives are pure?
It seems to me that study of and adherence to a theory of life written largely by one alcoholic, (Bill Wilson), whose stability and possibly sanity were questionable, for upwards of 70 years would support your statement that AA espouses a "deviant reality".
If you have not studied the preamble to an AA meeting, you should.
There are some statements made that would probably support your theory about deviant realities.
Very interesting. I think you have pinpointed our objection to AA, as well as explained why it seemed so "cultish" to us.
[b:97c7a8f08f]Would you be willing to elucidate?[/b:97c7a8f08f]
I have never heard of this concept of "deviant reality", but find it very interesting.
Do you have any references to this, or any links to written material on the subject?
What portions of AA dogma and literature do you feel promotes a "deviant reality"?
I would think that portions of the Big Book do.
Have you appied your theory to "the promises", and those parts of "working with others" which say that God will protect the AA member from harm if his motives are pure?
It seems to me that study of and adherence to a theory of life written largely by one alcoholic, (Bill Wilson), whose stability and possibly sanity were questionable, for upwards of 70 years would support your statement that AA espouses a "deviant reality".
If you have not studied the preamble to an AA meeting, you should.
There are some statements made that would probably support your theory about deviant realities.
Very interesting. I think you have pinpointed our objection to AA, as well as explained why it seemed so "cultish" to us.
Question for Alcoholics Anonymous experts.
Posted by:
ughaibu
()
Date: August 05, 2006 02:25PM
Barabara: Human beings are social animals and as such need to be able to usefully and effectively communicate, in order to do so it is important that there is a common "reality" shared by all humans. By virtue of the nature of human perception and rationality, we can classify things as real or not according to whether they are known to exist or not, and according to whether they can be supported by sound arguments based on things known to exist. In short, drawing a distinction between the personal and the "real" is fundamentally important for human societies, and their members, to function effectively. This view doesn't deny the personal reality of beliefs concerning religion, political ideology, flavours of ice-cream, etc, it simply requires a distinction between the personal and the common. In this sense the presentation of the personal as real, for anyone but the person themselves, is a deviant presentation of reality.
My interest in cults/dangeous groups is about two weeks old, so I'm still feeling my way around and have a lot of studying to catch up on, but from what I've read so far, I would say that Alcoholics Anonymous are promoting a deviant reality with their use of "god". In this matter it is irrelevant whether or not something corresponding to god does actually exist, as a socially useful concept god doesn't qualify as real, so the insistence by person A that person B accept god as part of their (person B's) reality, has socially destructive consequences, outside the person A group, for person B.
My interest in cults/dangeous groups is about two weeks old, so I'm still feeling my way around and have a lot of studying to catch up on, but from what I've read so far, I would say that Alcoholics Anonymous are promoting a deviant reality with their use of "god". In this matter it is irrelevant whether or not something corresponding to god does actually exist, as a socially useful concept god doesn't qualify as real, so the insistence by person A that person B accept god as part of their (person B's) reality, has socially destructive consequences, outside the person A group, for person B.
Question for Alcoholics Anonymous experts.
Posted by:
barabara
()
Date: August 06, 2006 05:09AM
ughaibu;
I started doing some research into why AA seems to be the rehab of choice for the court system in the US.
When I googled "deviant reality", the search engine led me to these links.
So far, I haven't been able to study everything I found, but there appears to be an initiate on the part of our executive leaders to promote Religious organizations involved in rehabilitation by assisting them in procuring government funding for their efforts.
I am uncertain of the legal and ethical ramifications of this development.
[b:e18ece4396]On the surface it seems to be a positive development, seemingly intended to relieve the public's financial burden, and provide increased access to treatment for the addict.
But when one looks at it in light of the enormous power already held by Alcoholics Anonymous in the rehabilitaion industry, the actual motivation behind this initiate is (to me at any rate) questionable.[/b:e18ece4396]
[www.atr.samhsa.gov]
[b:e18ece4396]It seems to me to be an attempt on the part of the President to increase utilization of faith-based treatments, rather than the opposite.[/b:e18ece4396]
Undoubtedly limited government finances are driving this movement towards promoting the use of charitable, often [b:e18ece4396]religious[/b:e18ece4396], organizations for treatment of substance abuse, as it reduces the tax burden.
However, encouraging such organizations to apply for government funding would seem to contradict this, wouldn't it?
Increased government funding for religion-based rehabilitation services would not be a savings to the public after all, but merely a shuffling of existing funds.
[b:e18ece4396]It might ultimately result in an increase of financial burden on the public[/b:e18ece4396].
[b:e18ece4396]I would be very interested in seeing whether or not the organization of AA,[/b:e18ece4396](which has a stated policy of being self-supporting)[b:e18ece4396], is being targeted by this initiative, and whether they are now or will be in the future an applicant for these funds[/b:e18ece4396].
[www.atr.samhsa.gov]
[www.whitehouse.gov]
[www.whitehouse.gov]
[www.toosmarttostart.samhsa.gov]
US Department of Health and Human Services
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Center for Substance Abuse Protection
www.samhsa.gov
I wonder if anyone in the White House has considered the use of Court-ordered referrals (of addicts and alcoholics) to faith-based 12 step programs in this light?
I started doing some research into why AA seems to be the rehab of choice for the court system in the US.
When I googled "deviant reality", the search engine led me to these links.
So far, I haven't been able to study everything I found, but there appears to be an initiate on the part of our executive leaders to promote Religious organizations involved in rehabilitation by assisting them in procuring government funding for their efforts.
I am uncertain of the legal and ethical ramifications of this development.
[b:e18ece4396]On the surface it seems to be a positive development, seemingly intended to relieve the public's financial burden, and provide increased access to treatment for the addict.
But when one looks at it in light of the enormous power already held by Alcoholics Anonymous in the rehabilitaion industry, the actual motivation behind this initiate is (to me at any rate) questionable.[/b:e18ece4396]
[www.atr.samhsa.gov]
As there has been much attention paid in the legal arena to the tendency of our courts to limit referrals of addicts and alcoholics to 12 step centered treatment, I'm not convinced that the purpose of this initiative is in reality providing access to a[b:e18ece4396] variety[/b:e18ece4396] of treatment models at all.Quote
Message from Mr. Charles G. Curie, Administrator
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Our nation’s faith-based and community-based providers offer a life net to people in need of substance abuse and mental health services. For this reason SAMHSA has worked hard to strengthen our collaborations with our other Federal partners and our partners at the State and local levels. Solid partnerships built on common ground mean more Americans will get the services they need. One example of this kind of partnership is the [b:e18ece4396]Access to Recovery Program[/color:e18ece4396][/b:e18ece4396]. Access to Recovery is designed to accomplish three main objectives, long-held by the field, policy makers, and legislators:
• It expands capacity by increasing the number and types of providers, including faith-based providers, who deliver clinical treatment and/or recovery support services.
• It requires grantees to manage performance, based on patient outcomes; and
• It allows recovery to be pursued through many different and personal pathways.
[b:e18ece4396]It seems to me to be an attempt on the part of the President to increase utilization of faith-based treatments, rather than the opposite.[/b:e18ece4396]
Undoubtedly limited government finances are driving this movement towards promoting the use of charitable, often [b:e18ece4396]religious[/b:e18ece4396], organizations for treatment of substance abuse, as it reduces the tax burden.
However, encouraging such organizations to apply for government funding would seem to contradict this, wouldn't it?
Increased government funding for religion-based rehabilitation services would not be a savings to the public after all, but merely a shuffling of existing funds.
[b:e18ece4396]It might ultimately result in an increase of financial burden on the public[/b:e18ece4396].
[b:e18ece4396]I would be very interested in seeing whether or not the organization of AA,[/b:e18ece4396](which has a stated policy of being self-supporting)[b:e18ece4396], is being targeted by this initiative, and whether they are now or will be in the future an applicant for these funds[/b:e18ece4396].
[www.atr.samhsa.gov]
Quote
What is ATR?
ATR is a competitive discretionary grant program funded by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, which will provide vouchers to clients for purchase of substance abuse clinical treatment and recovery support services. Goals of the program are to expand capacity, support client choice, and [b:e18ece4396]increase the array of faith-based and community-based providers for clinical treatment and recovery support services[/b:e18ece4396].
[www.whitehouse.gov]
[www.whitehouse.gov]
Quote
White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives
White House Faith-Based & Community Initiative?(PDF version of this brochure coming soon)
Faith-based and community organizations (FBCOs) have a long tradition of helping Americans in need and together represent an integral part of our nation’s social service network. Yet, all too often, the Federal government has put in place complicated rules and regulations preventing FBCOs from competing for funds on an equal footing with other organizations. President Bush believes that besides being inherently unfair, such an approach can waste tax-payer dollars and cut off the poor from successful programs. [b:e18ece4396]Federal funds should be awarded to the most effective organizations—whether public or private, large or small, faith-based or secular[/b:e18ece4396]—and all must be allowed to compete on a level playing field.
[b:e18ece4396]Focus of the Initiative[/b:e18ece4396]
• Identifying and eliminating barriers that impede the full participation of FBCOs in the Federal grants process.
• Ensuring that Federally-funded social services administered by State and local governments are consistent with equal treatment provisions.
• Encouraging greater corporate and philanthropic support for FBCOs' social service programs through public education and outreach activities.
• Pursuing legislative efforts to extend charitable choice provisions that prevent discrimination against faith-based organizations, protect the religious freedom of beneficiaries, and preserve religious hiring rights of faith-based charities.
[b:e18ece4396]Increasing Accessibility[/b:e18ece4396]
The underlying premise of the President’s Initiative is that a more open and competitive Federal grant-making process will increase the delivery of effective social services to those whose needs are greatest. Thus, Federal agencies have successfully undertaken a variety of measures to do this, including:
• Making information more accessible
• Providing training and technical assistance
• Broadening program eligibility
• Changing regulations
• Streamlining grant applications
• Focusing on the unique needs of grassroots organizations; and
• Eliminating preferential treatment for existing and former grantees
[b:e18ece4396]White House Conferences[/b:e18ece4396]
The White House is hosting a series of regional conferences and targeted workshops to continue its support for the work of effective faith-based and community social service programs. The events will provide participants with information about the government grants process and available funding opportunities, an overview of the legal responsibilities that come with the receipt of Federal funds and various grant writing tutorials. The conferences will also provide an opportunity to inform State and local officials about equal treatment regulations and other central elements of the Faith-Based and Community Initiative.
The conferences are supported by the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, Justice, Labor, and Veterans Affairs, the Small Business Administration, and the Agency for International
Development.
[b:e18ece4396]Written Documents[/b:e18ece4396]
The White House Office has published several written resources to assist grassroots groups in navigating the Federal grants system. These documents include Federal Funds for Organizations That Help Those In Need (a catalog of Federal grant opportunities), Guidance to Faith-Based and Community Organizations on Partnering with the Federal Government (a guide to the legal responsibilities associated with the receipt of Federal funds), and Protecting the Civil Rights and Religious Liberty of Faith-Based Organizations (a booklet which outlines the protection of religious hiring rights).
[www.toosmarttostart.samhsa.gov]
US Department of Health and Human Services
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Center for Substance Abuse Protection
www.samhsa.gov
Quote
[b:e18ece4396]Theories and Models for Health Communications[/b:e18ece4396]
[b:e18ece4396]Using Theories and Models[/b:e18ece4396]
According to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) National Cancer Institute’s (NCI) Making Health Communications Work (2002), “sound health communication development should draw upon theories(1) and models that offer different perspectives on the intended audiences and on the steps that can influence their change. No single theory dominates health communication because health problems, populations, cultures, and contexts vary. Many programs achieve the greatest impact by combining theories to address a problem.” In planning, developing, implementing, and evaluating the Too Smart To Start Initiative, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration is using a comprehensive health communications approach that is guided by various behavioral theories and models.
[b:e18ece4396]Cultivation Theory [/b:e18ece4396](Gerbner, Gross, Morgan, and Signorielli, 1980, 1986).
[b:e18ece4396]According to this theory, repeated, intense exposure to deviant definitions of “reality” in the mass media leads to perception of the deviant reality as normal. The result is a social legitimization of the reality as depicted in the mass media, which can influence behavior[/b:e18ece4396].
I wonder if anyone in the White House has considered the use of Court-ordered referrals (of addicts and alcoholics) to faith-based 12 step programs in this light?
Sorry, you can't reply to this topic. It has been closed.