Guest guest Posted July 22, 1999 Report Share Posted July 22, 1999 Hi Rita, folks On Wed, 21 Jul 1999 15:39:30 -0700 Railroad Rita wrote: < What I found was that although SMART has its good points, the philosophy seems to insist on " getting to the 'root' of the substance abuse problem " and recommends 12-18 months of meeting attendance, whether or not the individual is continuing to abuse substances. > I think youre forgetting Rita that SMART is for ppl who REALLY ARE alcohol/substance dependent when they arrive there! It is in fact true that ppl who are *genuinely* alcohol/substance dependent are at a significant risk of relapse on the forst year or two, and hence SMART's recommendation is justifed by addiction science. As Joe has said, the one thing good abt AA is that it does provide social support for abstinence to those who need it. Social support is an extremely effective motivator, and given that, it shows just how dreadful the 12sp is that AA's success rate is so poor *despite* providing social support. Someone who has had a genuine severe alcohol dependence problem for many years could well benefit by remaining in SMART for those 12-18 months. << The EAP creeps then had the CHUTZPAH to claim me as a " success statistic " for their wasteful, fraudulent, inhumane program!! >> Why dont you invite them to your " Back to Work " party at the weekend, in which you will get totally loaded, but will be sober and fit for work on MOnday? Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 25, 1999 Report Share Posted July 25, 1999 --- On Fri, 23 Jul 1999 00:49:26 Pete Watts wrote: >Hi Rita, folks > >On Wed, 21 Jul 1999 15:39:30 -0700 Railroad Rita > wrote: > >< What I found was that although >SMART has its good points, the philosophy seems to insist >on " getting to the 'root' of the substance abuse problem " >and recommends 12-18 months of meeting attendance, whether >or not the individual is continuing to abuse substances. > > >I think youre forgetting Rita that SMART is for ppl who >REALLY ARE alcohol/substance dependent when they arrive >there! It is in fact true that ppl who are *genuinely* >alcohol/substance dependent are at a significant risk of >relapse on the forst year or two, and hence SMART's >recommendation is justifed by addiction science. As Joe >has said, the one thing good abt AA is that it does provide >social support for abstinence to those who need it. Social >support is an extremely effective motivator, and given >that, it shows just how dreadful the 12sp is that AA's >success rate is so poor *despite* providing social support. > >Someone who has had a genuine severe alcohol dependence >problem for many years could well benefit by remaining in >SMART for those 12-18 months. > -------------------------- Maybe so, Pete, and I'm certainly not knocking SMART, which is probably the best non-12-step alternative program available involving groups and meetings. My issue is with the insistence that anyone who does NOT wish to attend groups/meetings CANNOT " recover " from a destructive drinking pattern. The first book I read presenting alternatives to a 12-step mindset was in fact nothing to do with RR or SMART; it was called " How to Stop Drinking Without AA " , by Jerry Dorsman. Some of the book is not to my taste -- a chapter on eating foods that are yin/yang " balanced " was a little much -- but the book in general was excellent in two respects: (1) Dorsman was very clear that black-and-white thinking that everyone is either an " alcoholic " who must abstain forever and arduously work on " recovery " , or else a non-alcoholic who doesn't have to give any thought to his/her drinking, does a lot of people a grave disservice. (2) He validates the feelings of a lot of people who just aren't " group " types, and are more inclined toward self-improvement through reading, thinking, and making a personal commitment to change. No matter how far down the path of problematic drinking one has gone, if he is personally committed to making a change, but disinclined to attend meetings (12-step or otherwise), should this be considered pathology? I say again, Pete: We as humans are not stamped out of a mold. Anyone who finds meetings helpful should certainly attend them. But some, like me, are more one-on-one types of people for whom groups provide neither comfort nor inspiration. Vive le difference. ~Rita --== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==-- Share what you know. Learn what you don't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 25, 1999 Report Share Posted July 25, 1999 --- On Fri, 23 Jul 1999 00:49:26 Pete Watts wrote: >Hi Rita, folks > >On Wed, 21 Jul 1999 15:39:30 -0700 Railroad Rita > wrote: > >< What I found was that although >SMART has its good points, the philosophy seems to insist >on " getting to the 'root' of the substance abuse problem " >and recommends 12-18 months of meeting attendance, whether >or not the individual is continuing to abuse substances. > > >I think youre forgetting Rita that SMART is for ppl who >REALLY ARE alcohol/substance dependent when they arrive >there! It is in fact true that ppl who are *genuinely* >alcohol/substance dependent are at a significant risk of >relapse on the forst year or two, and hence SMART's >recommendation is justifed by addiction science. As Joe >has said, the one thing good abt AA is that it does provide >social support for abstinence to those who need it. Social >support is an extremely effective motivator, and given >that, it shows just how dreadful the 12sp is that AA's >success rate is so poor *despite* providing social support. > >Someone who has had a genuine severe alcohol dependence >problem for many years could well benefit by remaining in >SMART for those 12-18 months. > -------------------------- Maybe so, Pete, and I'm certainly not knocking SMART, which is probably the best non-12-step alternative program available involving groups and meetings. My issue is with the insistence that anyone who does NOT wish to attend groups/meetings CANNOT " recover " from a destructive drinking pattern. The first book I read presenting alternatives to a 12-step mindset was in fact nothing to do with RR or SMART; it was called " How to Stop Drinking Without AA " , by Jerry Dorsman. Some of the book is not to my taste -- a chapter on eating foods that are yin/yang " balanced " was a little much -- but the book in general was excellent in two respects: (1) Dorsman was very clear that black-and-white thinking that everyone is either an " alcoholic " who must abstain forever and arduously work on " recovery " , or else a non-alcoholic who doesn't have to give any thought to his/her drinking, does a lot of people a grave disservice. (2) He validates the feelings of a lot of people who just aren't " group " types, and are more inclined toward self-improvement through reading, thinking, and making a personal commitment to change. No matter how far down the path of problematic drinking one has gone, if he is personally committed to making a change, but disinclined to attend meetings (12-step or otherwise), should this be considered pathology? I say again, Pete: We as humans are not stamped out of a mold. Anyone who finds meetings helpful should certainly attend them. But some, like me, are more one-on-one types of people for whom groups provide neither comfort nor inspiration. Vive le difference. ~Rita --== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==-- Share what you know. Learn what you don't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 26, 1999 Report Share Posted July 26, 1999 In a message dated 7/26/99 9:47:50 AM Pacific Daylight Time, joe-b@... writes: << I don't think that SMART insists that at all. It recognises that many stop addictive behaviours of their own accord without any kind of external help. There is research (somewhere) that demonstrates this and it would make no sense at all for SMART, which bases itself in science to pretend that meeting attendance of some sort was necessary for all when it knows that isn't true. >> Now for me, I think that once my PTSD symptoms got some attention/treatment, I lost most of my desire to drink....God knows AA didn't take it away. BUT, that doesn't mean that I want to make an attempt at being a moderate drinker. Scares me too much. I know where it got me last time, and besides, I have a lot of other things I would rather blow money on....computer-related stuff, for instance! <g> Best, Luanne Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 26, 1999 Report Share Posted July 26, 1999 Yo Rita; I find myself saying Rah Rah, to your viewpoint on this. You said you were a " One on one " type person. Really I am too, though my one on one was with a psychologist. I think she only kept seeing me that last 6 months to put me over the two year mark. That seems to be a watershed point in substance abuse recovery. The last I believe eight months of therapy was about once a month. Trying to show you don't have a problem to a stepper is an exercise in futility and their judgement of a person will spill over even into the medical field where Doctors should know better. My own doctor refused me pain relievers, because his father said so. His fathers qualifications ? 25 years in AA, that's it. I ended up by accident getting a new doctor, who thought that was double dumb. To dispute AA's opinion feels like disputing God if you are the one under AA's guns. They listen, nod sagely to each other and treat us like nutcases who just have yet to see the glorious light(Barf) When it turns out, as in my case, that the individual was correct and AA wrong, they do not admit error, they claim bad information, ie is not a true alcoholic, he's drydrunk or in denial. Never are they honestly mistaken, which may be the ultimate dishonesty. If an employer wishes to place sanctions on a person for having alcohol in their bloodstream during working hours, the employer has every right up to discharge to do that. However, to arbitrarily send everyone to treatment, regardless of their personal history, seems ludicrous. An official reprimand would likely be more effective for many folks. However, a reprimand would imply personal responsibility and does not go along with the helpless diseased addict concept. So they stick with the concept, rather than be responsible. The problem in my opinion was not which treatment they send a person to, but that they send them at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 26, 1999 Report Share Posted July 26, 1999 Yo Rita; I find myself saying Rah Rah, to your viewpoint on this. You said you were a " One on one " type person. Really I am too, though my one on one was with a psychologist. I think she only kept seeing me that last 6 months to put me over the two year mark. That seems to be a watershed point in substance abuse recovery. The last I believe eight months of therapy was about once a month. Trying to show you don't have a problem to a stepper is an exercise in futility and their judgement of a person will spill over even into the medical field where Doctors should know better. My own doctor refused me pain relievers, because his father said so. His fathers qualifications ? 25 years in AA, that's it. I ended up by accident getting a new doctor, who thought that was double dumb. To dispute AA's opinion feels like disputing God if you are the one under AA's guns. They listen, nod sagely to each other and treat us like nutcases who just have yet to see the glorious light(Barf) When it turns out, as in my case, that the individual was correct and AA wrong, they do not admit error, they claim bad information, ie is not a true alcoholic, he's drydrunk or in denial. Never are they honestly mistaken, which may be the ultimate dishonesty. If an employer wishes to place sanctions on a person for having alcohol in their bloodstream during working hours, the employer has every right up to discharge to do that. However, to arbitrarily send everyone to treatment, regardless of their personal history, seems ludicrous. An official reprimand would likely be more effective for many folks. However, a reprimand would imply personal responsibility and does not go along with the helpless diseased addict concept. So they stick with the concept, rather than be responsible. The problem in my opinion was not which treatment they send a person to, but that they send them at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 26, 1999 Report Share Posted July 26, 1999 At 06:09 PM 7/25/99 -0700, you wrote: > Maybe so, Pete, and I'm certainly not >knocking SMART, which is probably the best >non-12-step alternative program available >involving groups and meetings. > > My issue is with the insistence that >anyone who does NOT wish to attend >groups/meetings CANNOT " recover " from a >destructive drinking pattern. <snip> I don't think that SMART insists that at all. It recognises that many stop addictive behaviours of their own accord without any kind of external help. There is research (somewhere) that demonstrates this and it would make no sense at all for SMART, which bases itself in science to pretend that meeting attendance of some sort was necessary for all when it knows that isn't true. I think the meetings are provided because it is the easiest way to grasp the tools provided, although some people do that straight out of the books anyway. I was one of the latter. Joe Berenbaum mailto:joe-b@... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 27, 1999 Report Share Posted July 27, 1999 hello, Sorry, I don't always get all messages in the thread--In my case I think it's AOL and not eGroups, but thought I'd jump in with a warning regarding employment. First, by all means an employer should use progressive discipline up to and including discharge for those who report with alchohol in their systems. But here's a twist. I (during my AA years) asked my insurance company to provide a detox for me. I was afraid another bout of DTs would give me a seizure, and I was at that point (because AA told me if i drank I would get to that point). Anyway, my employer made me handwrite and sign a letter that stated if I reported for work with alcohol in my system I would be discharged. About three years later I had had 2-3 glasses of wine with my wife on a special occasion. I reported to work in the evening (I worked overnight) and was promptly taken to the hospital for a breathylyzer (SP?). With a reading that would be thrown out of a court of law, I was fired. In retrospect, I had been irresponsible regarding the previous letter i had signed, etc. However, I had been forever branded as an " alcoholic " in their eyes. The people who showed up hung over every friday smelling like a roadhouse toilet were just " normal " in their eyes, I guess. Obviously if you are in physical danger from withdrawal, get medical attention. But the real moral of the story is to be careful whom you tell anything regarding your drinking. Even people who know me well and know I don't drink " alcoholically " any more are concerned that I'm having a beer--even nonalcoholic beer!--if they know my past in AA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 27, 1999 Report Share Posted July 27, 1999 Hi Rita Of course, not wanting to participate in groups is not pathological per se. Introverted ppl will tend not to like group approaches as part of their general temperament, for example. I think I saw you post yourself abt how the ppl who are most succesful at beating compulsive behavior are actually those who dont seek any help at all. However, if a person does get help by a group, then it makes sense to make full use of one. best, Pete On Sun, 25 Jul 1999 18:09:50 -0700 Railroad Rita wrote: > My issue is with the insistence that > anyone who does NOT wish to attend > groups/meetings CANNOT " recover " from a > destructive drinking pattern. > > The first book I read presenting > alternatives to a 12-step mindset was in fact > nothing to do with RR or SMART; it was called > " How to Stop Drinking Without AA " , by Jerry > Dorsman. Some of the book is not to my taste > -- a chapter on eating foods that are > yin/yang " balanced " was a little much -- but > the book in general was excellent in two > respects: (1) Dorsman was very clear that > black-and-white thinking that everyone is > either an " alcoholic " who must abstain > forever and arduously work on " recovery " , or > else a non-alcoholic who doesn't have to give > any thought to his/her drinking, does a lot > of people a grave disservice. (2) He > validates the feelings of a lot of people who > just aren't " group " types, and are more > inclined toward self-improvement through > reading, thinking, and making a personal > commitment to change. > > No matter how far down the path of > problematic drinking one has gone, if he is > personally committed to making a change, but > disinclined to attend meetings (12-step or > otherwise), should this be considered > pathology? > > I say again, Pete: We as humans are not > stamped out of a mold. Anyone who finds > meetings helpful should certainly attend > them. But some, like me, are more one-on-one > types of people for whom groups provide > neither comfort nor inspiration. Vive le > difference. > > ~Rita > > > --== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==-- > Share what you know. Learn what you don't. Pete Watts Owner PSY-PHAR Psychology/Psychiatry Outcome Research in PsychoPharm PD Personality Disorders Discussion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 27, 1999 Report Share Posted July 27, 1999 Hi Rita Of course, not wanting to participate in groups is not pathological per se. Introverted ppl will tend not to like group approaches as part of their general temperament, for example. I think I saw you post yourself abt how the ppl who are most succesful at beating compulsive behavior are actually those who dont seek any help at all. However, if a person does get help by a group, then it makes sense to make full use of one. best, Pete On Sun, 25 Jul 1999 18:09:50 -0700 Railroad Rita wrote: > My issue is with the insistence that > anyone who does NOT wish to attend > groups/meetings CANNOT " recover " from a > destructive drinking pattern. > > The first book I read presenting > alternatives to a 12-step mindset was in fact > nothing to do with RR or SMART; it was called > " How to Stop Drinking Without AA " , by Jerry > Dorsman. Some of the book is not to my taste > -- a chapter on eating foods that are > yin/yang " balanced " was a little much -- but > the book in general was excellent in two > respects: (1) Dorsman was very clear that > black-and-white thinking that everyone is > either an " alcoholic " who must abstain > forever and arduously work on " recovery " , or > else a non-alcoholic who doesn't have to give > any thought to his/her drinking, does a lot > of people a grave disservice. (2) He > validates the feelings of a lot of people who > just aren't " group " types, and are more > inclined toward self-improvement through > reading, thinking, and making a personal > commitment to change. > > No matter how far down the path of > problematic drinking one has gone, if he is > personally committed to making a change, but > disinclined to attend meetings (12-step or > otherwise), should this be considered > pathology? > > I say again, Pete: We as humans are not > stamped out of a mold. Anyone who finds > meetings helpful should certainly attend > them. But some, like me, are more one-on-one > types of people for whom groups provide > neither comfort nor inspiration. Vive le > difference. > > ~Rita > > > --== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==-- > Share what you know. Learn what you don't. Pete Watts Owner PSY-PHAR Psychology/Psychiatry Outcome Research in PsychoPharm PD Personality Disorders Discussion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 27, 1999 Report Share Posted July 27, 1999 Hi Rita Of course, not wanting to participate in groups is not pathological per se. Introverted ppl will tend not to like group approaches as part of their general temperament, for example. I think I saw you post yourself abt how the ppl who are most succesful at beating compulsive behavior are actually those who dont seek any help at all. However, if a person does get help by a group, then it makes sense to make full use of one. best, Pete On Sun, 25 Jul 1999 18:09:50 -0700 Railroad Rita wrote: > My issue is with the insistence that > anyone who does NOT wish to attend > groups/meetings CANNOT " recover " from a > destructive drinking pattern. > > The first book I read presenting > alternatives to a 12-step mindset was in fact > nothing to do with RR or SMART; it was called > " How to Stop Drinking Without AA " , by Jerry > Dorsman. Some of the book is not to my taste > -- a chapter on eating foods that are > yin/yang " balanced " was a little much -- but > the book in general was excellent in two > respects: (1) Dorsman was very clear that > black-and-white thinking that everyone is > either an " alcoholic " who must abstain > forever and arduously work on " recovery " , or > else a non-alcoholic who doesn't have to give > any thought to his/her drinking, does a lot > of people a grave disservice. (2) He > validates the feelings of a lot of people who > just aren't " group " types, and are more > inclined toward self-improvement through > reading, thinking, and making a personal > commitment to change. > > No matter how far down the path of > problematic drinking one has gone, if he is > personally committed to making a change, but > disinclined to attend meetings (12-step or > otherwise), should this be considered > pathology? > > I say again, Pete: We as humans are not > stamped out of a mold. Anyone who finds > meetings helpful should certainly attend > them. But some, like me, are more one-on-one > types of people for whom groups provide > neither comfort nor inspiration. Vive le > difference. > > ~Rita > > > --== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==-- > Share what you know. Learn what you don't. Pete Watts Owner PSY-PHAR Psychology/Psychiatry Outcome Research in PsychoPharm PD Personality Disorders Discussion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 28, 1999 Report Share Posted July 28, 1999 Isn't that the truth. Like a babe in the woods, when I first went to AA, I mentioned it to 2 co-workers who turned out to not be such good friends eventually. Within a month 2 others at work approached me about helping someone they knew get to AA. I confided what I was doing to people I thought I could trust and it backfired on me. I suspect it was a major reason I got caught without a job when the company downsized. My seniority counted for squat. But I've made a geographical cure and don't say nothing to nobody about AA. And I'm more healthier with my secret!!! Jan Re: SMART/RR - Rita >hello, >Sorry, I don't always get all messages in the thread--In my case I think it's >AOL and not eGroups, but thought I'd jump in with a warning regarding >employment. First, by all means an employer should use progressive >discipline up to and including discharge for those who report with alchohol >in their systems. But here's a twist. I (during my AA years) asked my >insurance company to provide a detox for me. I was afraid another bout of >DTs would give me a seizure, and I was at that point (because AA told me if >i drank I would get to that point). Anyway, my employer made me handwrite >and sign a letter that stated if I reported for work with alcohol in my >system I would be discharged. About three years later I had had 2-3 glasses >of wine with my wife on a special occasion. I reported to work in the >evening (I worked overnight) and was promptly taken to the hospital for a >breathylyzer (SP?). With a reading that would be thrown out of a court of >law, I was fired. In retrospect, I had been irresponsible regarding the >previous letter i had signed, etc. However, I had been forever branded as an > " alcoholic " in their eyes. The people who showed up hung over every friday >smelling like a roadhouse toilet were just " normal " in their eyes, I guess. >Obviously if you are in physical danger from withdrawal, get medical >attention. But the real moral of the story is to be careful whom you tell >anything regarding your drinking. Even people who know me well and know I >don't drink " alcoholically " any more are concerned that I'm having a >beer--even nonalcoholic beer!--if they know my past in AA. > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ >Click Here to apply for a NextCard Internet Visa and start earning >FREE travel in HALF the time with the NextCard Rew@rds Program. >http://clickhere./click/449 > > >eGroups.com home: /group/12-step-free > - Simplifying group communications > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 28, 1999 Report Share Posted July 28, 1999 Isn't that the truth. Like a babe in the woods, when I first went to AA, I mentioned it to 2 co-workers who turned out to not be such good friends eventually. Within a month 2 others at work approached me about helping someone they knew get to AA. I confided what I was doing to people I thought I could trust and it backfired on me. I suspect it was a major reason I got caught without a job when the company downsized. My seniority counted for squat. But I've made a geographical cure and don't say nothing to nobody about AA. And I'm more healthier with my secret!!! Jan Re: SMART/RR - Rita >hello, >Sorry, I don't always get all messages in the thread--In my case I think it's >AOL and not eGroups, but thought I'd jump in with a warning regarding >employment. First, by all means an employer should use progressive >discipline up to and including discharge for those who report with alchohol >in their systems. But here's a twist. I (during my AA years) asked my >insurance company to provide a detox for me. I was afraid another bout of >DTs would give me a seizure, and I was at that point (because AA told me if >i drank I would get to that point). Anyway, my employer made me handwrite >and sign a letter that stated if I reported for work with alcohol in my >system I would be discharged. About three years later I had had 2-3 glasses >of wine with my wife on a special occasion. I reported to work in the >evening (I worked overnight) and was promptly taken to the hospital for a >breathylyzer (SP?). With a reading that would be thrown out of a court of >law, I was fired. In retrospect, I had been irresponsible regarding the >previous letter i had signed, etc. However, I had been forever branded as an > " alcoholic " in their eyes. The people who showed up hung over every friday >smelling like a roadhouse toilet were just " normal " in their eyes, I guess. >Obviously if you are in physical danger from withdrawal, get medical >attention. But the real moral of the story is to be careful whom you tell >anything regarding your drinking. Even people who know me well and know I >don't drink " alcoholically " any more are concerned that I'm having a >beer--even nonalcoholic beer!--if they know my past in AA. > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ >Click Here to apply for a NextCard Internet Visa and start earning >FREE travel in HALF the time with the NextCard Rew@rds Program. >http://clickhere./click/449 > > >eGroups.com home: /group/12-step-free > - Simplifying group communications > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 31, 1999 Report Share Posted July 31, 1999 Rita: The information that you have acquired regarding attendence in SMART groups is false. We suggest that a person to try three meetings then, if they like what they here, they can return. We also do not try to " get to the root " of the problem, although a rooted problem might require a look at the underlying issues to a particular problem. We use CBT which focuses on changing a behavior in the present with little regard for the past unless a person wishes to discuss it. No one is told to do anything here! We offer suggestions only. Totally unlike stepism. SMART does borrow from Rational Recovery and CBT but we use a much broader approach to recovery to include recovery from many other self-defeating behaviors, not only substance abuse. This is unique about this group. The ideas and concepts suggested here can be use for many other changes if change is desirable. An web site that contains alot of information about SMART recovery can be found at http://www.smartrecovery.org It is unfortunate that you felt compelled to slam one of the few groups that makes great sense to the idea of self-healing from the personal suffering while using the Brain in the process. Re: SMART/RR - Rita > > > --- > > > > On Fri, 23 Jul 1999 00:49:26 Pete Watts > wrote: > > >Hi Rita, folks > > > >On Wed, 21 Jul 1999 15:39:30 -0700 Railroad > Rita > > wrote: > > > >< What I found was that although > >SMART has its good points, the philosophy > seems to insist > >on " getting to the 'root' of the substance > abuse problem " > >and recommends 12-18 months of meeting > attendance, whether > >or not the individual is continuing to abuse > substances. > > > > >I think youre forgetting Rita that SMART is > for ppl who > >REALLY ARE alcohol/substance dependent when > they arrive > >there! It is in fact true that ppl who are > *genuinely* > >alcohol/substance dependent are at a > significant risk of > >relapse on the forst year or two, and hence > SMART's > >recommendation is justifed by addiction > science. As Joe > >has said, the one thing good abt AA is that > it does provide > >social support for abstinence to those who > need it. Social > >support is an extremely effective motivator, > and given > >that, it shows just how dreadful the 12sp is > that AA's > >success rate is so poor *despite* providing > social support. > > > >Someone who has had a genuine severe alcohol > dependence > >problem for many years could well benefit by > remaining in > >SMART for those 12-18 months. > > > -------------------------- > > Maybe so, Pete, and I'm certainly not > knocking SMART, which is probably the best > non-12-step alternative program available > involving groups and meetings. > > My issue is with the insistence that > anyone who does NOT wish to attend > groups/meetings CANNOT " recover " from a > destructive drinking pattern. > > The first book I read presenting > alternatives to a 12-step mindset was in fact > nothing to do with RR or SMART; it was called > " How to Stop Drinking Without AA " , by Jerry > Dorsman. Some of the book is not to my taste > -- a chapter on eating foods that are > yin/yang " balanced " was a little much -- but > the book in general was excellent in two > respects: (1) Dorsman was very clear that > black-and-white thinking that everyone is > either an " alcoholic " who must abstain > forever and arduously work on " recovery " , or > else a non-alcoholic who doesn't have to give > any thought to his/her drinking, does a lot > of people a grave disservice. (2) He > validates the feelings of a lot of people who > just aren't " group " types, and are more > inclined toward self-improvement through > reading, thinking, and making a personal > commitment to change. > > No matter how far down the path of > problematic drinking one has gone, if he is > personally committed to making a change, but > disinclined to attend meetings (12-step or > otherwise), should this be considered > pathology? > > I say again, Pete: We as humans are not > stamped out of a mold. Anyone who finds > meetings helpful should certainly attend > them. But some, like me, are more one-on-one > types of people for whom groups provide > neither comfort nor inspiration. Vive le > difference. > > ~Rita > > > --== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==-- > Share what you know. Learn what you don't. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Accurate impartial advice on everything from laptops to tablesaws. > http://clickhere./click/552 > > > eGroups.com home: /group/12-step-free > - Simplifying group communications > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 31, 1999 Report Share Posted July 31, 1999 Rita: The information that you have acquired regarding attendence in SMART groups is false. We suggest that a person to try three meetings then, if they like what they here, they can return. We also do not try to " get to the root " of the problem, although a rooted problem might require a look at the underlying issues to a particular problem. We use CBT which focuses on changing a behavior in the present with little regard for the past unless a person wishes to discuss it. No one is told to do anything here! We offer suggestions only. Totally unlike stepism. SMART does borrow from Rational Recovery and CBT but we use a much broader approach to recovery to include recovery from many other self-defeating behaviors, not only substance abuse. This is unique about this group. The ideas and concepts suggested here can be use for many other changes if change is desirable. An web site that contains alot of information about SMART recovery can be found at http://www.smartrecovery.org It is unfortunate that you felt compelled to slam one of the few groups that makes great sense to the idea of self-healing from the personal suffering while using the Brain in the process. Re: SMART/RR - Rita > > > --- > > > > On Fri, 23 Jul 1999 00:49:26 Pete Watts > wrote: > > >Hi Rita, folks > > > >On Wed, 21 Jul 1999 15:39:30 -0700 Railroad > Rita > > wrote: > > > >< What I found was that although > >SMART has its good points, the philosophy > seems to insist > >on " getting to the 'root' of the substance > abuse problem " > >and recommends 12-18 months of meeting > attendance, whether > >or not the individual is continuing to abuse > substances. > > > > >I think youre forgetting Rita that SMART is > for ppl who > >REALLY ARE alcohol/substance dependent when > they arrive > >there! It is in fact true that ppl who are > *genuinely* > >alcohol/substance dependent are at a > significant risk of > >relapse on the forst year or two, and hence > SMART's > >recommendation is justifed by addiction > science. As Joe > >has said, the one thing good abt AA is that > it does provide > >social support for abstinence to those who > need it. Social > >support is an extremely effective motivator, > and given > >that, it shows just how dreadful the 12sp is > that AA's > >success rate is so poor *despite* providing > social support. > > > >Someone who has had a genuine severe alcohol > dependence > >problem for many years could well benefit by > remaining in > >SMART for those 12-18 months. > > > -------------------------- > > Maybe so, Pete, and I'm certainly not > knocking SMART, which is probably the best > non-12-step alternative program available > involving groups and meetings. > > My issue is with the insistence that > anyone who does NOT wish to attend > groups/meetings CANNOT " recover " from a > destructive drinking pattern. > > The first book I read presenting > alternatives to a 12-step mindset was in fact > nothing to do with RR or SMART; it was called > " How to Stop Drinking Without AA " , by Jerry > Dorsman. Some of the book is not to my taste > -- a chapter on eating foods that are > yin/yang " balanced " was a little much -- but > the book in general was excellent in two > respects: (1) Dorsman was very clear that > black-and-white thinking that everyone is > either an " alcoholic " who must abstain > forever and arduously work on " recovery " , or > else a non-alcoholic who doesn't have to give > any thought to his/her drinking, does a lot > of people a grave disservice. (2) He > validates the feelings of a lot of people who > just aren't " group " types, and are more > inclined toward self-improvement through > reading, thinking, and making a personal > commitment to change. > > No matter how far down the path of > problematic drinking one has gone, if he is > personally committed to making a change, but > disinclined to attend meetings (12-step or > otherwise), should this be considered > pathology? > > I say again, Pete: We as humans are not > stamped out of a mold. Anyone who finds > meetings helpful should certainly attend > them. But some, like me, are more one-on-one > types of people for whom groups provide > neither comfort nor inspiration. Vive le > difference. > > ~Rita > > > --== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==-- > Share what you know. Learn what you don't. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Accurate impartial advice on everything from laptops to tablesaws. > http://clickhere./click/552 > > > eGroups.com home: /group/12-step-free > - Simplifying group communications > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 31, 1999 Report Share Posted July 31, 1999 Rita: The information that you have acquired regarding attendence in SMART groups is false. We suggest that a person to try three meetings then, if they like what they here, they can return. We also do not try to " get to the root " of the problem, although a rooted problem might require a look at the underlying issues to a particular problem. We use CBT which focuses on changing a behavior in the present with little regard for the past unless a person wishes to discuss it. No one is told to do anything here! We offer suggestions only. Totally unlike stepism. SMART does borrow from Rational Recovery and CBT but we use a much broader approach to recovery to include recovery from many other self-defeating behaviors, not only substance abuse. This is unique about this group. The ideas and concepts suggested here can be use for many other changes if change is desirable. An web site that contains alot of information about SMART recovery can be found at http://www.smartrecovery.org It is unfortunate that you felt compelled to slam one of the few groups that makes great sense to the idea of self-healing from the personal suffering while using the Brain in the process. Re: SMART/RR - Rita > > > --- > > > > On Fri, 23 Jul 1999 00:49:26 Pete Watts > wrote: > > >Hi Rita, folks > > > >On Wed, 21 Jul 1999 15:39:30 -0700 Railroad > Rita > > wrote: > > > >< What I found was that although > >SMART has its good points, the philosophy > seems to insist > >on " getting to the 'root' of the substance > abuse problem " > >and recommends 12-18 months of meeting > attendance, whether > >or not the individual is continuing to abuse > substances. > > > > >I think youre forgetting Rita that SMART is > for ppl who > >REALLY ARE alcohol/substance dependent when > they arrive > >there! It is in fact true that ppl who are > *genuinely* > >alcohol/substance dependent are at a > significant risk of > >relapse on the forst year or two, and hence > SMART's > >recommendation is justifed by addiction > science. As Joe > >has said, the one thing good abt AA is that > it does provide > >social support for abstinence to those who > need it. Social > >support is an extremely effective motivator, > and given > >that, it shows just how dreadful the 12sp is > that AA's > >success rate is so poor *despite* providing > social support. > > > >Someone who has had a genuine severe alcohol > dependence > >problem for many years could well benefit by > remaining in > >SMART for those 12-18 months. > > > -------------------------- > > Maybe so, Pete, and I'm certainly not > knocking SMART, which is probably the best > non-12-step alternative program available > involving groups and meetings. > > My issue is with the insistence that > anyone who does NOT wish to attend > groups/meetings CANNOT " recover " from a > destructive drinking pattern. > > The first book I read presenting > alternatives to a 12-step mindset was in fact > nothing to do with RR or SMART; it was called > " How to Stop Drinking Without AA " , by Jerry > Dorsman. Some of the book is not to my taste > -- a chapter on eating foods that are > yin/yang " balanced " was a little much -- but > the book in general was excellent in two > respects: (1) Dorsman was very clear that > black-and-white thinking that everyone is > either an " alcoholic " who must abstain > forever and arduously work on " recovery " , or > else a non-alcoholic who doesn't have to give > any thought to his/her drinking, does a lot > of people a grave disservice. (2) He > validates the feelings of a lot of people who > just aren't " group " types, and are more > inclined toward self-improvement through > reading, thinking, and making a personal > commitment to change. > > No matter how far down the path of > problematic drinking one has gone, if he is > personally committed to making a change, but > disinclined to attend meetings (12-step or > otherwise), should this be considered > pathology? > > I say again, Pete: We as humans are not > stamped out of a mold. Anyone who finds > meetings helpful should certainly attend > them. But some, like me, are more one-on-one > types of people for whom groups provide > neither comfort nor inspiration. Vive le > difference. > > ~Rita > > > --== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==-- > Share what you know. Learn what you don't. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Accurate impartial advice on everything from laptops to tablesaws. > http://clickhere./click/552 > > > eGroups.com home: /group/12-step-free > - Simplifying group communications > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 1, 1999 Report Share Posted August 1, 1999 --- > >It is unfortunate that you felt compelled to slam one of the few groups that >makes great sense to the idea of self-healing from the personal suffering >while using the Brain in the process. > , I think you misunderstood. I'm not " slamming " SMART; I think it's a great alternative for people with destructive substance use patterns who need a support group/recovery program, and as Pete pointed out, people who have been unsuccessful at moderating their substance use on their own might well benefit from several months' attendance, should they be amenable to it. SMART attendance/participation was never intended to be coerced by outside entities (but then, neither was AA). When I said " My issue is with the insistence that anyone who does NOT wish to attend groups/meetings CANNOT " recover " from a destructive drinking pattern " I was referring to the attitude of my company's EAP. It took a federal lawsuit to get them to even consider allowing me to stop attending AA (under threat of continued suspension w/o pay) and by that time I had been out of service for 6 months and labeled " chemically dependent " , although I had been randomly tested (urine/breath) about 100 times without a trace, and stated I had no " cravings " or any other symptoms of addiction. I was " allowed " (read: required, if I hoped to be reinstated) at that point to attend SMART, which, great program though it might be, was singularly irrelevant to me. I wasn't a substance abuser, and I was in private therapy for depression and personal issues. I also had a 10-year-old son who was upset by the amount of time I had to spend away from him in " treatment " and " meetings " for a condition he knew I didn't have. The EAP goons seized upon the SMART literature (which they had sent for) and claimed I needed to attend SMART for at least a year in order to " resolve my addiction problem " . Of course, that's their perversion of the SMART program, and of my diagnostic/prognostic status. They also required me to get attendance slips signed at SMART (which the coordinator did; I wish he'd had the courage to write a nasty note to the effect that (a) SMART does not support coerced attendance so will not sign slips, and ( Rita states that she is not abusing substances and does not appear to have a need for the SMART program), and asked me Step-addled questions such as " Have you gotten a sponsor in SMART yet? " I actually told them Lois Trimpey was my sponsor and I promised to call her whenever I get a craving, and the morons went for it, and finally allowed me back to work. ~Rita -------------------------------- >Rita: > >The information that you have acquired regarding attendence in SMART groups >is false. We suggest that a person to try three meetings then, if they like >what they here, they can return. We also do not try to " get to the root " of >the problem, although a rooted problem might require a look at the >underlying issues to a particular problem. We use CBT which focuses on >changing a behavior in the present with little regard for the past unless a >person wishes to discuss it. No one is told to do anything here! We offer >suggestions only. Totally unlike stepism. SMART does borrow from Rational >Recovery and CBT but we use a much broader approach to recovery to include >recovery from many other self-defeating behaviors, not only substance abuse. >This is unique about this group. The ideas and concepts suggested here can >be use for many other changes if change is desirable. An web site that >contains alot of information about SMART recovery can be found at >http://www.smartrecovery.org > >It is unfortunate that you felt compelled to slam one of the few groups that >makes great sense to the idea of self-healing from the personal suffering >while using the Brain in the process. > > > ---------------- >> >> On Fri, 23 Jul 1999 00:49:26 Pete Watts >> wrote: >> >> >Hi Rita, folks >> > >> >On Wed, 21 Jul 1999 15:39:30 -0700 Railroad >> Rita >> > wrote: >> > >> >< What I found was that although >> >SMART has its good points, the philosophy >> seems to insist >> >on " getting to the 'root' of the substance >> abuse problem " >> >and recommends 12-18 months of meeting >> attendance, whether >> >or not the individual is continuing to abuse >> substances. > >> > >> >I think youre forgetting Rita that SMART is >> for ppl who >> >REALLY ARE alcohol/substance dependent when >> they arrive >> >there! It is in fact true that ppl who are >> *genuinely* >> >alcohol/substance dependent are at a >> significant risk of >> >relapse on the forst year or two, and hence >> SMART's >> >recommendation is justifed by addiction >> science. As Joe >> >has said, the one thing good abt AA is that >> it does provide >> >social support for abstinence to those who >> need it. Social >> >support is an extremely effective motivator, >> and given >> >that, it shows just how dreadful the 12sp is >> that AA's >> >success rate is so poor *despite* providing >> social support. >> > >> >Someone who has had a genuine severe alcohol >> dependence >> >problem for many years could well benefit by >> remaining in >> >SMART for those 12-18 months. >> > >> -------------------------- >> >> Maybe so, Pete, and I'm certainly not >> knocking SMART, which is probably the best >> non-12-step alternative program available >> involving groups and meetings. >> >> My issue is with the insistence that >> anyone who does NOT wish to attend >> groups/meetings CANNOT " recover " from a >> destructive drinking pattern. >> >> The first book I read presenting >> alternatives to a 12-step mindset was in fact >> nothing to do with RR or SMART; it was called >> " How to Stop Drinking Without AA " , by Jerry >> Dorsman. Some of the book is not to my taste >> -- a chapter on eating foods that are >> yin/yang " balanced " was a little much -- but >> the book in general was excellent in two >> respects: (1) Dorsman was very clear that >> black-and-white thinking that everyone is >> either an " alcoholic " who must abstain >> forever and arduously work on " recovery " , or >> else a non-alcoholic who doesn't have to give >> any thought to his/her drinking, does a lot >> of people a grave disservice. (2) He >> validates the feelings of a lot of people who >> just aren't " group " types, and are more >> inclined toward self-improvement through >> reading, thinking, and making a personal >> commitment to change. >> >> No matter how far down the path of >> problematic drinking one has gone, if he is >> personally committed to making a change, but >> disinclined to attend meetings (12-step or >> otherwise), should this be considered >> pathology? >> >> I say again, Pete: We as humans are not >> stamped out of a mold. Anyone who finds >> meetings helpful should certainly attend >> them. But some, like me, are more one-on-one >> types of people for whom groups provide >> neither comfort nor inspiration. Vive le >> difference. >> >> ~Rita >> --== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==-- Share what you know. Learn what you don't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 1, 1999 Report Share Posted August 1, 1999 --- > >It is unfortunate that you felt compelled to slam one of the few groups that >makes great sense to the idea of self-healing from the personal suffering >while using the Brain in the process. > , I think you misunderstood. I'm not " slamming " SMART; I think it's a great alternative for people with destructive substance use patterns who need a support group/recovery program, and as Pete pointed out, people who have been unsuccessful at moderating their substance use on their own might well benefit from several months' attendance, should they be amenable to it. SMART attendance/participation was never intended to be coerced by outside entities (but then, neither was AA). When I said " My issue is with the insistence that anyone who does NOT wish to attend groups/meetings CANNOT " recover " from a destructive drinking pattern " I was referring to the attitude of my company's EAP. It took a federal lawsuit to get them to even consider allowing me to stop attending AA (under threat of continued suspension w/o pay) and by that time I had been out of service for 6 months and labeled " chemically dependent " , although I had been randomly tested (urine/breath) about 100 times without a trace, and stated I had no " cravings " or any other symptoms of addiction. I was " allowed " (read: required, if I hoped to be reinstated) at that point to attend SMART, which, great program though it might be, was singularly irrelevant to me. I wasn't a substance abuser, and I was in private therapy for depression and personal issues. I also had a 10-year-old son who was upset by the amount of time I had to spend away from him in " treatment " and " meetings " for a condition he knew I didn't have. The EAP goons seized upon the SMART literature (which they had sent for) and claimed I needed to attend SMART for at least a year in order to " resolve my addiction problem " . Of course, that's their perversion of the SMART program, and of my diagnostic/prognostic status. They also required me to get attendance slips signed at SMART (which the coordinator did; I wish he'd had the courage to write a nasty note to the effect that (a) SMART does not support coerced attendance so will not sign slips, and ( Rita states that she is not abusing substances and does not appear to have a need for the SMART program), and asked me Step-addled questions such as " Have you gotten a sponsor in SMART yet? " I actually told them Lois Trimpey was my sponsor and I promised to call her whenever I get a craving, and the morons went for it, and finally allowed me back to work. ~Rita -------------------------------- >Rita: > >The information that you have acquired regarding attendence in SMART groups >is false. We suggest that a person to try three meetings then, if they like >what they here, they can return. We also do not try to " get to the root " of >the problem, although a rooted problem might require a look at the >underlying issues to a particular problem. We use CBT which focuses on >changing a behavior in the present with little regard for the past unless a >person wishes to discuss it. No one is told to do anything here! We offer >suggestions only. Totally unlike stepism. SMART does borrow from Rational >Recovery and CBT but we use a much broader approach to recovery to include >recovery from many other self-defeating behaviors, not only substance abuse. >This is unique about this group. The ideas and concepts suggested here can >be use for many other changes if change is desirable. An web site that >contains alot of information about SMART recovery can be found at >http://www.smartrecovery.org > >It is unfortunate that you felt compelled to slam one of the few groups that >makes great sense to the idea of self-healing from the personal suffering >while using the Brain in the process. > > > ---------------- >> >> On Fri, 23 Jul 1999 00:49:26 Pete Watts >> wrote: >> >> >Hi Rita, folks >> > >> >On Wed, 21 Jul 1999 15:39:30 -0700 Railroad >> Rita >> > wrote: >> > >> >< What I found was that although >> >SMART has its good points, the philosophy >> seems to insist >> >on " getting to the 'root' of the substance >> abuse problem " >> >and recommends 12-18 months of meeting >> attendance, whether >> >or not the individual is continuing to abuse >> substances. > >> > >> >I think youre forgetting Rita that SMART is >> for ppl who >> >REALLY ARE alcohol/substance dependent when >> they arrive >> >there! It is in fact true that ppl who are >> *genuinely* >> >alcohol/substance dependent are at a >> significant risk of >> >relapse on the forst year or two, and hence >> SMART's >> >recommendation is justifed by addiction >> science. As Joe >> >has said, the one thing good abt AA is that >> it does provide >> >social support for abstinence to those who >> need it. Social >> >support is an extremely effective motivator, >> and given >> >that, it shows just how dreadful the 12sp is >> that AA's >> >success rate is so poor *despite* providing >> social support. >> > >> >Someone who has had a genuine severe alcohol >> dependence >> >problem for many years could well benefit by >> remaining in >> >SMART for those 12-18 months. >> > >> -------------------------- >> >> Maybe so, Pete, and I'm certainly not >> knocking SMART, which is probably the best >> non-12-step alternative program available >> involving groups and meetings. >> >> My issue is with the insistence that >> anyone who does NOT wish to attend >> groups/meetings CANNOT " recover " from a >> destructive drinking pattern. >> >> The first book I read presenting >> alternatives to a 12-step mindset was in fact >> nothing to do with RR or SMART; it was called >> " How to Stop Drinking Without AA " , by Jerry >> Dorsman. Some of the book is not to my taste >> -- a chapter on eating foods that are >> yin/yang " balanced " was a little much -- but >> the book in general was excellent in two >> respects: (1) Dorsman was very clear that >> black-and-white thinking that everyone is >> either an " alcoholic " who must abstain >> forever and arduously work on " recovery " , or >> else a non-alcoholic who doesn't have to give >> any thought to his/her drinking, does a lot >> of people a grave disservice. (2) He >> validates the feelings of a lot of people who >> just aren't " group " types, and are more >> inclined toward self-improvement through >> reading, thinking, and making a personal >> commitment to change. >> >> No matter how far down the path of >> problematic drinking one has gone, if he is >> personally committed to making a change, but >> disinclined to attend meetings (12-step or >> otherwise), should this be considered >> pathology? >> >> I say again, Pete: We as humans are not >> stamped out of a mold. Anyone who finds >> meetings helpful should certainly attend >> them. But some, like me, are more one-on-one >> types of people for whom groups provide >> neither comfort nor inspiration. Vive le >> difference. >> >> ~Rita >> --== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==-- Share what you know. Learn what you don't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 1, 1999 Report Share Posted August 1, 1999 --- > >It is unfortunate that you felt compelled to slam one of the few groups that >makes great sense to the idea of self-healing from the personal suffering >while using the Brain in the process. > , I think you misunderstood. I'm not " slamming " SMART; I think it's a great alternative for people with destructive substance use patterns who need a support group/recovery program, and as Pete pointed out, people who have been unsuccessful at moderating their substance use on their own might well benefit from several months' attendance, should they be amenable to it. SMART attendance/participation was never intended to be coerced by outside entities (but then, neither was AA). When I said " My issue is with the insistence that anyone who does NOT wish to attend groups/meetings CANNOT " recover " from a destructive drinking pattern " I was referring to the attitude of my company's EAP. It took a federal lawsuit to get them to even consider allowing me to stop attending AA (under threat of continued suspension w/o pay) and by that time I had been out of service for 6 months and labeled " chemically dependent " , although I had been randomly tested (urine/breath) about 100 times without a trace, and stated I had no " cravings " or any other symptoms of addiction. I was " allowed " (read: required, if I hoped to be reinstated) at that point to attend SMART, which, great program though it might be, was singularly irrelevant to me. I wasn't a substance abuser, and I was in private therapy for depression and personal issues. I also had a 10-year-old son who was upset by the amount of time I had to spend away from him in " treatment " and " meetings " for a condition he knew I didn't have. The EAP goons seized upon the SMART literature (which they had sent for) and claimed I needed to attend SMART for at least a year in order to " resolve my addiction problem " . Of course, that's their perversion of the SMART program, and of my diagnostic/prognostic status. They also required me to get attendance slips signed at SMART (which the coordinator did; I wish he'd had the courage to write a nasty note to the effect that (a) SMART does not support coerced attendance so will not sign slips, and ( Rita states that she is not abusing substances and does not appear to have a need for the SMART program), and asked me Step-addled questions such as " Have you gotten a sponsor in SMART yet? " I actually told them Lois Trimpey was my sponsor and I promised to call her whenever I get a craving, and the morons went for it, and finally allowed me back to work. ~Rita -------------------------------- >Rita: > >The information that you have acquired regarding attendence in SMART groups >is false. We suggest that a person to try three meetings then, if they like >what they here, they can return. We also do not try to " get to the root " of >the problem, although a rooted problem might require a look at the >underlying issues to a particular problem. We use CBT which focuses on >changing a behavior in the present with little regard for the past unless a >person wishes to discuss it. No one is told to do anything here! We offer >suggestions only. Totally unlike stepism. SMART does borrow from Rational >Recovery and CBT but we use a much broader approach to recovery to include >recovery from many other self-defeating behaviors, not only substance abuse. >This is unique about this group. The ideas and concepts suggested here can >be use for many other changes if change is desirable. An web site that >contains alot of information about SMART recovery can be found at >http://www.smartrecovery.org > >It is unfortunate that you felt compelled to slam one of the few groups that >makes great sense to the idea of self-healing from the personal suffering >while using the Brain in the process. > > > ---------------- >> >> On Fri, 23 Jul 1999 00:49:26 Pete Watts >> wrote: >> >> >Hi Rita, folks >> > >> >On Wed, 21 Jul 1999 15:39:30 -0700 Railroad >> Rita >> > wrote: >> > >> >< What I found was that although >> >SMART has its good points, the philosophy >> seems to insist >> >on " getting to the 'root' of the substance >> abuse problem " >> >and recommends 12-18 months of meeting >> attendance, whether >> >or not the individual is continuing to abuse >> substances. > >> > >> >I think youre forgetting Rita that SMART is >> for ppl who >> >REALLY ARE alcohol/substance dependent when >> they arrive >> >there! It is in fact true that ppl who are >> *genuinely* >> >alcohol/substance dependent are at a >> significant risk of >> >relapse on the forst year or two, and hence >> SMART's >> >recommendation is justifed by addiction >> science. As Joe >> >has said, the one thing good abt AA is that >> it does provide >> >social support for abstinence to those who >> need it. Social >> >support is an extremely effective motivator, >> and given >> >that, it shows just how dreadful the 12sp is >> that AA's >> >success rate is so poor *despite* providing >> social support. >> > >> >Someone who has had a genuine severe alcohol >> dependence >> >problem for many years could well benefit by >> remaining in >> >SMART for those 12-18 months. >> > >> -------------------------- >> >> Maybe so, Pete, and I'm certainly not >> knocking SMART, which is probably the best >> non-12-step alternative program available >> involving groups and meetings. >> >> My issue is with the insistence that >> anyone who does NOT wish to attend >> groups/meetings CANNOT " recover " from a >> destructive drinking pattern. >> >> The first book I read presenting >> alternatives to a 12-step mindset was in fact >> nothing to do with RR or SMART; it was called >> " How to Stop Drinking Without AA " , by Jerry >> Dorsman. Some of the book is not to my taste >> -- a chapter on eating foods that are >> yin/yang " balanced " was a little much -- but >> the book in general was excellent in two >> respects: (1) Dorsman was very clear that >> black-and-white thinking that everyone is >> either an " alcoholic " who must abstain >> forever and arduously work on " recovery " , or >> else a non-alcoholic who doesn't have to give >> any thought to his/her drinking, does a lot >> of people a grave disservice. (2) He >> validates the feelings of a lot of people who >> just aren't " group " types, and are more >> inclined toward self-improvement through >> reading, thinking, and making a personal >> commitment to change. >> >> No matter how far down the path of >> problematic drinking one has gone, if he is >> personally committed to making a change, but >> disinclined to attend meetings (12-step or >> otherwise), should this be considered >> pathology? >> >> I say again, Pete: We as humans are not >> stamped out of a mold. Anyone who finds >> meetings helpful should certainly attend >> them. But some, like me, are more one-on-one >> types of people for whom groups provide >> neither comfort nor inspiration. Vive le >> difference. >> >> ~Rita >> --== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==-- Share what you know. Learn what you don't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 2, 1999 Report Share Posted August 2, 1999 Again Rita, I have a mixture of mirth and horror at the farce you have been through. That they are complete nerds is that they should try to use the non-professional SMART literature (however good) to justify their position. The only thing justifiable would be medical literature, but there of course they would find no suggestion that group participation is required to overcome alcohol/substance abuse. This again reminds me of FLoyd Garrett, who also insists that group participation is what matters, but it doesnt really matter what - even Moderation Managememnt apparently, even tho the 'true alcoholic' cant drink. P. On Sun, 01 Aug 1999 18:55:53 -0700 Railroad Rita wrote: > , I think you misunderstood. I'm not " slamming " SMART; I think it's a great alternative for people with destructive substance use patterns who need a support group/recovery program, and as Pete pointed out, people who have been unsuccessful at moderating their substance use on their own might well benefit from several months' attendance, should they be amenable to it. SMART attendance/participation was never intended to be coerced by outside entities (but then, neither was AA). When I said " My issue is with the insistence that anyone who does NOT wish to attend groups/meetings CANNOT " recover " from a destructive drinking pattern " I was referring to the attitude of my company's EAP. It took a federal lawsuit to get them to even consider allowing me to stop attending AA (under threat of continued suspension w/o pay) and by that time I had been out of service for 6 months and labeled " chemically dependent " , although I had been randomly tested (urine/breath) about 100 times without a trace, and stated I had no " cravings " or any other symptoms of addiction. > > I was " allowed " (read: required, if I hoped to be reinstated) at that point to attend SMART, which, great program though it might be, was singularly irrelevant to me. I wasn't a substance abuser, and I was in private therapy for depression and personal issues. I also had a 10-year-old son who was upset by the amount of time I had to spend away from him in " treatment " and " meetings " for a condition he knew I didn't have. > > The EAP goons seized upon the SMART literature (which they had sent for) and claimed I needed to attend SMART for at least a year in order to " resolve my addiction problem " . Of course, that's their perversion of the SMART program, and of my diagnostic/prognostic status. They also required me to get attendance slips signed at SMART (which the coordinator did; I wish he'd had the courage to write a nasty note to the effect that (a) SMART does not support coerced attendance so will not sign slips, and ( Rita states that she is not abusing substances and does not appear to have a need for the SMART program), and asked me Step-addled questions such as " Have you gotten a sponsor in SMART yet? " I actually told them Lois Trimpey was my sponsor and I promised to call her whenever I get a craving, and the morons went for it, and finally allowed me back to work. > > ~Rita Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 2, 1999 Report Share Posted August 2, 1999 Again Rita, I have a mixture of mirth and horror at the farce you have been through. That they are complete nerds is that they should try to use the non-professional SMART literature (however good) to justify their position. The only thing justifiable would be medical literature, but there of course they would find no suggestion that group participation is required to overcome alcohol/substance abuse. This again reminds me of FLoyd Garrett, who also insists that group participation is what matters, but it doesnt really matter what - even Moderation Managememnt apparently, even tho the 'true alcoholic' cant drink. P. On Sun, 01 Aug 1999 18:55:53 -0700 Railroad Rita wrote: > , I think you misunderstood. I'm not " slamming " SMART; I think it's a great alternative for people with destructive substance use patterns who need a support group/recovery program, and as Pete pointed out, people who have been unsuccessful at moderating their substance use on their own might well benefit from several months' attendance, should they be amenable to it. SMART attendance/participation was never intended to be coerced by outside entities (but then, neither was AA). When I said " My issue is with the insistence that anyone who does NOT wish to attend groups/meetings CANNOT " recover " from a destructive drinking pattern " I was referring to the attitude of my company's EAP. It took a federal lawsuit to get them to even consider allowing me to stop attending AA (under threat of continued suspension w/o pay) and by that time I had been out of service for 6 months and labeled " chemically dependent " , although I had been randomly tested (urine/breath) about 100 times without a trace, and stated I had no " cravings " or any other symptoms of addiction. > > I was " allowed " (read: required, if I hoped to be reinstated) at that point to attend SMART, which, great program though it might be, was singularly irrelevant to me. I wasn't a substance abuser, and I was in private therapy for depression and personal issues. I also had a 10-year-old son who was upset by the amount of time I had to spend away from him in " treatment " and " meetings " for a condition he knew I didn't have. > > The EAP goons seized upon the SMART literature (which they had sent for) and claimed I needed to attend SMART for at least a year in order to " resolve my addiction problem " . Of course, that's their perversion of the SMART program, and of my diagnostic/prognostic status. They also required me to get attendance slips signed at SMART (which the coordinator did; I wish he'd had the courage to write a nasty note to the effect that (a) SMART does not support coerced attendance so will not sign slips, and ( Rita states that she is not abusing substances and does not appear to have a need for the SMART program), and asked me Step-addled questions such as " Have you gotten a sponsor in SMART yet? " I actually told them Lois Trimpey was my sponsor and I promised to call her whenever I get a craving, and the morons went for it, and finally allowed me back to work. > > ~Rita Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 2, 1999 Report Share Posted August 2, 1999 Rita, You outSMARTed them. Jan -as " Have you gotten a sponsor in SMART yet? " I actually told them Lois Trimpey was my sponsor and I promised to call her whenever I get a craving, and the morons went for it, and finally allowed me back to work. >> >> ~Rita > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ >GET $10 OFF ANY ORDER @ healthshop.com! No min. purchase req. >Save on vitamins & supplements. Use coupon code: EGROUPS at checkout >http://clickhere./click/615 > > >eGroups.com home: /group/12-step-free > - Simplifying group communications > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 2, 1999 Report Share Posted August 2, 1999 > > -as " Have you gotten a sponsor in SMART yet? " I actually told them Lois > Trimpey was my sponsor and I promised to call her whenever I get a craving, > and the morons went for it, and finally allowed me back to work. > >> > >> ~Rita Rita, did it REALLY hinge on this, that they only allowed you back to work when you said you had Lois Trimpey as sponsor? Hilarious of course, that they didnt check it, so basically one can simply lie to them - say you had an AA sponsor even. The funny thing is, surely one of the Trimpeys to them ought to be devil incarnate - they know NOTHING abt RR at all! Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.