Re: Another glorious moment in AA history

[Guest guest]

At 08:27 04/02/00 -0800, you wrote:

>Sorry I can't just paste the article into this message. I'm a Mac guy

>but my mom's machine is an IBM clone. Whoever said Windows 95 is like

>Mac '87 was right!

Here it is- this may get chopped due to length and if so I'll repost in

segments;

ALCOHOLICS CAN BE CURED--DESPITE A.A.

By Dr. Arthur H. Cain

An expert charges that Alcoholics anonymous has become a dogmatic

cult that blocks medical progress and hampers many members' lives.

It is time we made a thorough investigation of Alcoholics Anonymous in the

interest of our public health. A.A. is identified in the public mind as a

God-fearing fellowship of 350,000 " arrested alcoholics " who keep one

another sober and rescue others from the horrors of alcoholism.

Unfortunately, A.A. has become a dogmatic cult whose chapters too often

turn sobriety into slavery to A.A. Because of its narrow outlook,

Alcoholics Anonymous prevents thousands from ever being cured. Moreover A.A

has retarded scientific research into one of America's most serious health

problems.

My own experience with A.A. began in 1947. As a psychologist and

investigator into the causes and cure of uncontrolled drinking, I have

attended about 500 A.A. meetings in over 40 states and a dozen foreign

countries. At first I was tremendously impressed with A.A.'s altruistic

efforts in alcoholics' behalf. Its members would perform prodigies of

selfless service, no matter what the hour by meeting the helpless and

sodden in hospitals, flophouses and homes, and offering their sympathy, a

helping hand, and their own example that temptation could be withstood. At

the weekly meetings, which all A.A. members attended, there was a true

sense of humility and a devout belief in God (We " came to believe that a

Power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity " ) and the

fellowship of man--the original tenets of A.A. New members were given the

freedom to question A.A.'s guiding principles codified in the Twelve

Traditions and the Twelve Steps of Recovery. '

'Over the years a disturbing change began to take place. As an increasing

number of alcoholics joined A.A. chapters many turned out to be misfits who

had rejected Christianity, Judaism or the Kiwanis Club. Dogmatic and

opinionated in their nonbeliefs, they found in A.A. an instrument for a new

kind of bigotry. Their only meaning in life was that they had heroically

become " arrested " alcoholics. Arrogant egoists, they soon dominated many of

A.A.'s 10,000 chapters. Weekly meetings, once spontaneous and exciting,

became formalized and ritualistic. Anyone who questioned A.A.'s principles

or even expressed curiosity was handed the slogan, Utilize, Don't Analyze,

and told to sit down. The desire to help others degenerated. As one

disheartened former A.A. member told me, " I felt nobody cared what happened

to W. I felt they were just interested in another alcoholic who would

become another notch in their belts. I felt as if I was being pressed into

serving their cause and building up their oligarchy. "

With this growing dogmatism came a Dark Ages attitude toward any scientist

who might differ with official A.A. doctrine. According to the A.A. litany,

alcoholism is a physical disease which can never be cured: " Once an

alcoholic, always an alcoholic. " The corollary is: " A reformed alcoholic

must live A.A. from day to day and never leave A.A. "

Actually, there is no scientific evidence that alcoholism is an incurable,

physical disease. According to current evidence, the origin of uncontrolled

drinking is psychological. A person drinks to ease anxiety, depression,

boredom, guilt, timidity, inarticulateness. An alcoholic learns to become

one; he is not born that way. This means that many alcoholics can return to

normal drinking without fear of ending up on Skid Row. Over the past 17

years I have treated more than 50 alcoholics who no longer need to attend

meetings or receive treatment. Most important, over 20 of my patients have

learned to drink normally, to use alcohol as a beverage, not a

psychological crutch.

Yet when scientists have reported similar findings, A.A. members have often

set out to discredit them. In 1957 Doctors Melvin L. Selzer and

Holloway of the University of Michigan came up with the then startling

report that 13 confirmed alcoholics had become social drinkers. Because of

the pressure of an influential A.A. member, the state agency that provided

the funds for the study virtually ordered the two scientists to omit what

it called these " embarrassing " findings. Doctor Selzer published his

findings anyway.

In 1962 Dr. D.L. Davies, after a study at Maudsley Hospital in London,

declared that seven men who had been alcoholics were able to drink normally

after treatment, some had been drinking without problems for as long as 11

years. Doctor Davies concluded that 'the generally accepted view that no

alcohol addict can ever again drink normally should be modified. " Some A.A.

members branded the scientist's report " immoral, because it might cause

some members to drink. "

Dr. E. M. Jellinek, a cofounder of the Yale School of Alcohol Studies and a

dean of researchers in the field of alcoholism until his death in 1963, was

drawing on his own experience when he declared: " . . . Alcoholics

Anonymous have naturally created the picture of alcoholism in their own

image . . . and there is every reason why the student of alcoholism should

emancipate himself from accepting this exclusiveness as propounded by A.A. "

Not only has A.A. interfered with scientific investigations, it has

prevented medical and psychological treatment which runs counter to its own

theories. At one New York City hospital, for instance, the physicians

preferred using paraldehyde to treat acute intoxication. But then A.A.

members implied that they would stop referring patients there if

paraldehyde was used. The doctors were persuaded to switch to another drug,

chloral hydrate. As the physician in charge of the alcoholics' ward

explained, the A.A. non-scientists had discovered that paraldehyde was a

form of alcohol. Actually, chloral hydrate is the more toxic drug. In fact,

its indiscriminate use in another New York hospital has left some patients

more intoxicated upon discharge than when they were admitted.

While A.A. adherents battle scientific inquiry that does not fit A.A.'s

narrow theories, its chapters often attempt to assume control of members'

lives. Purporting to offer everything needed for human fulfillment, the

fellowship now boasts of a " ladies auxiliary, " called Al-Anon, for spouses

of members and even a division for members' children called Alateen. It

suggests that the youngsters open their meetings by reciting this

incantation: " We will always be grateful to Alateen for giving us a Way of

Life and a wonderful, healthy program to live by and enjoy! " Implied is the

distressing theory that there is no other way of life for alcoholics except

that of A.A.--a life in which every waking hour is devoted to the struggle

for sobriety.

The wife of a Texas member described some unfortunate consequences of

A.A.'s creed that the struggle against alcohol must be the most important

ambition in a member's life. " This must be placed above wives or husbands,

children homes, or jobs. They must be ready to abandon these things at any

time.... The tragic part is, some of them while searching for this sobriety

and serenity actually do exactly that. " How pervasive the obsession with

A.A. can become was poignantly demonstrated by a patient who had come to me

because of worries about her A.A. husband. He had proposed that they move

their bed into the A.A. clubhouse so they might be " avail able 24 hours a

day just in case an alcoholic wandered in. "

For many members, of course, staying sober is a fierce challenge daily. But

under the A.A. program, the lives of many are so sterile that their growth

as human beings is hindered. Taught to rely or slogans and compulsive A.A.

routine, some are unable to face the fact that they are alcoholics because

they are psychologically sick. It is for this reason that many A.A. members

never recover.

A New Hampshire novelist and former A.A. member, who has been continuously

sober for eight years, described this human waste when he wrote me- " I have

met members who are actually afraid to think. They have made a high fence

of A.A., which shuts them out from all pleasurable and vital aspects of life. "

Behind the A.A. fence the original principle that alcoholics must be humble

before God has been turned into the dictum that alcoholics are God's chosen

people. This theme is preached in meetings and through books and pamphlets.

A typical illustration is a booklet titled. " Around the Clock With A.A., "

published recently by an A.A. group in California. One passage declares:

" God in His wisdom selected this group of men and women to be the purveyors

of His goodness.... He went right to the drunkard, the so-called weakling

of the world. Well might He have said to us: 'Unto your weak and feeble

hands I have entrusted- power beyond estimate. To you has been given that

which has been denied the most learned of your fellows. Not to scientists

or statesmen, not to wives or mothers, not even to my priests or ministers

have I given this gift of helping other alcoholics which I entrust to

you. " ' Such idolatry causes the believer to see himself as all-knowing, and

turns the missionary into the zealot.

A.A.'s creeds not only infect its own members but pervade public education.

Most of what we hear or read about alcoholism is inspired by A.A. adherents

spouting A.A. dogmas. City, state and private agencies frequently fill all

key posts with A.A. members. One western state actually requires that

personnel assigned to its alcoholism program be A.A. members for at least

two years. No professional experience is needed. The A.A. philosophy also

dominates the National Council on Alcoholism, the only nationwide

public-information agency on alcoholism. N.C.A., which is supported by

public donations, has over 60 affiliated information committees scattered

throughout the country. Although both N.C.A. and A.A. deny that they are

officially connected, many members of N.C.A.'s staff and some directors are

A.A. members. A.A. members serve as directors in eight out of ten N.C.A.

information centers in the largest cities in the United States.

Thus, it is not surprising that N.C.A. continues to parrot the A.A. line

that alcoholism is a " progressive disease for which there is no known cure,

but which can only be arrested. " Further, N.C.A. in a series of radio and

TV commercials actually stated that the American Medical Association had

declared alcoholism to be a disease, although the A.M.A. has restricted

itself to general statements that the alcoholic is " sick. " Time and again,

I have heard public figures recite A.A.-N.C.A. myths and propaganda as if

they were gospel.

I once heard Arthur Flemming, former Secretary of Health, Education and

Welfare, read verbatim a pronouncement on alcoholism which I knew had been

prepared a year earlier by N.C.A.'s public-relations firm. Flemming offered

the now familiar " statistic " that there are five million alcoholics in the

United States. This figure is based on a study Doctor Jellinek of Yale

conducted 18 years ago in a small community; he thought he had found that

three percent of the population were alcoholics. N.C.A. applied this

percentage to the whole nation. Doctor Jellinek, a great physiologist but

no statistician, repudiated his own formula in 1956. The five-million

figure is only a guess, for- no scientific count of alcoholics has ever

been made.

While N.C.A. issues well-intended but sometimes questionable facts and

theories, A.A. officials, when pressed, often hide behind the famous Tenth

Tradition, which states that " Alcoholics Anonymous has no opinion on

outside issues, hence the A.A. name ought never be drawn into public

controversy. " This device enables members of A.A. to make outrageous

assertions which A.A.'s head quarters promptly disavows when challenged.

" Many people I have tried to help, " said one Chicago member, 'have

abandoned the program just because they couldn't take the ex cathedra

homilies on drugs, alcohol, psychiatry, medicine, sociology, biology, to

name a few subjects on which they speak with authority. "

Much of A.A.'s failure can be blamed, on a lack of forward-looking,

constructive leadership. Writer Jerome Ellison recently spent several

months as a paid consultant to A.A. evaluating the fellowship's

publications and activities. At national headquarters in New York City,

Ellison declared, committee politics took up half the working day, and

gossip was venomous. Everybody was an expert, Ellison went on, " with a

cluster of ideas closed to amendment. " He related how one member had

submitted to the A.A. monthly bulletin an article which showed that nearly

all southern and a great many northern A.A. chapters were racially

segregated, and that A.A. had failed to keep pace with the growing, problem

of Negro alcoholism. The article was turned down on the ground that it

" might disrupt A.A. unity. "

Ellison's most damning indictment concerned the rule made by A.A.'s

nonalcoholic board of trustees that no change can be made in A.A.'s

theories on, alcoholism even though they are nearly a quarter of a century

old. " Despite the fact that the rank and file teems with exciting,

relevant, informed and up-to-the-minute experience, " Ellison declared,

" none of it is permitted to appear in book form. To publish such

literature, it is felt, would be to risk heresy. "

Needless to say, I do not suggest that A.A. be abolished or that a single

member quit. That A.A. helps many thousands stay sober is obvious. But

Alcoholics Anonymous should return to its original purpose of being a

much-needed first-aid station. The " arrest " of uncontrolled drinking is the

essential first step in becoming a recovered or cured alcoholic. During

this critical period, the alcoholic needs the sympathy and understanding

that only another alcoholic can give. But after three months or so, when

the shakes have subsided and the cobwebs are beginning to clear, the

recovering alcoholic should go ahead. He should not be taught that he must

remain forever crippled and bound by the paralyzing concept " Once an

alcoholic, always an alcoholic. " It is at this point that the patient needs

a different kind of understanding: an objective, dispassionate, clinical

understanding that physicians, psychologists and pastoral counselors, not

A.A. members, are trained to give. Only after he has undergone a rigorous

and lengthy revision of his personality should he attempt to drink normally

again, and then only if he desires to do so.

After all, sobriety in itself is not a way of life. It is simply the

absence of intoxication. It is what one does with his sobriety and his life

that is important.

Joe B.

[Guest guest]

Joe thanks so much for that post. I have been in the depths of despair

lately wondering if I had just bit the bullet, shoved down my truths, endured

endless meetings, if I had done that, well I wouldn't be getting a divorce

from a man I dearly love. And I do. But I could not live with the fenced in

thinking that became worse day by day. The rhetoric and the remoteness.

" Emotionally Unavailable "

Lucky for me yet unfortunately for me, I saw a side of him that was so great

and fun and full of life. But just for a month or two. Then slogan city set

back in. And if I wanted to be with him I had to be with him at an AA

function. And I couldn't do it. I did not want to drink but I didn't want

to be a automaton either.

Anyway, I've been sitting here in quiet despair lately and I know this is all

for the best and I truly know I can not go near AA or it will suffocate me.

So thanks for that great reading material. I know this is the right thing. I

just need to start believing in myself.

[Guest guest]

> Needless to say, I do not suggest that A.A. be abolished or that a single

> member quit. That A.A. helps many thousands stay sober is obvious. But

> Alcoholics Anonymous should return to its original purpose of being a

> much-needed first-aid station. The " arrest " of uncontrolled drinking is

the

> essential first step in becoming a recovered or cured alcoholic. During

> this critical period, the alcoholic needs the sympathy and understanding

> that only another alcoholic can give. But after three months or so, when

> the shakes have subsided and the cobwebs are beginning to clear, the

> recovering alcoholic should go ahead. He should not be taught that he

must

> remain forever crippled and bound by the paralyzing concept " Once an

> alcoholic, always an alcoholic. " It is at this point that the patient

needs

> a different kind of understanding: an objective, dispassionate, clinical

> understanding that physicians, psychologists and pastoral counselors, not

> A.A. members, are trained to give. Only after he has undergone a rigorous

> and lengthy revision of his personality should he attempt to drink

normally

> again, and then only if he desires to do so.

>

> After all, sobriety in itself is not a way of life. It is simply the

> absence of intoxication. It is what one does with his sobriety and his

life

> that is important.

>

>

> Joe B.

>

>

}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}

My Sentiments entirely!

_______________________________________________________

Get 100% FREE Internet Access powered by Excite

Visit http://freeworld.excite.com

[Guest guest]

At 21:56 04/02/00 -0500, you wrote:

>Joe thanks so much for that post. I have been in the depths of despair

>lately wondering if I had just bit the bullet, shoved down my truths, endured

>endless meetings, if I had done that, well I wouldn't be getting a divorce

>from a man I dearly love. And I do. But I could not live with the fenced in

>thinking that became worse day by day. The rhetoric and the remoteness.

> " Emotionally Unavailable "

>

>Lucky for me yet unfortunately for me, I saw a side of him that was so great

>and fun and full of life. But just for a month or two. Then slogan city set

>back in. And if I wanted to be with him I had to be with him at an AA

>function. And I couldn't do it. I did not want to drink but I didn't want

>to be a automaton either.

>

>Anyway, I've been sitting here in quiet despair lately and I know this is all

>for the best and I truly know I can not go near AA or it will suffocate me.

>So thanks for that great reading material. I know this is the right thing. I

>just need to start believing in myself.

I'm glad you liked it- any thanks should go to Jim for unearthing it

though- I merely pasted it into an email message! But then that's what

teamwork is all about, isn't it?

Joe B.

[Guest guest]

Cain wrote several articles and a few books. One of his articles was titled

" Alcoholics Anonymous: Cult or Cure. " Cain sobered up in AA and then earned a

doctorate in psychology. Cain believed in the " addictive personality, " and

thought that with his Ph.D. in psychology, he could " cure " that. His thesis

was that alcoholism was a mental disease and psychology had the cure. He

argued that in order to " prove " you were cured, you had to drink. Thus,

starting from a version of the " disease concept, " he ended up advocating

" controlled drinking. " Like so many others, he thought that disproving AA's

" first-drink theory " lead to the conclusion that alcohol was harmless. After

the 60's we don't hear much from him. It is thought that his controlled

drinking experiments were ultimately a failure.

[Guest guest]

Jim Hankins wrote:

>

> www.eskimo.com/~burked/history/harpers.html

>

Does this thing have anything to do with yellow snow, an eskimo named

Nanook, or St. Elfonzo's Parish?

[Guest guest]

THanks to both of you. I read the article at the website and then again

when Joe posted it.

Judith

On Sat, 05 Feb 2000 05:04:05 +0000, 12-step-freeegroups wrote:

> I'm glad you liked it- any thanks should go to Jim for unearthing it

though- I merely pasted it into an email message! But then that's what

teamwork is all about, isn't it?

>

> Joe B.

_______________________________________________________

Get 100% FREE Internet Access powered by Excite

Visit http://freeworld.excite.com

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 02/05/2000 6:46:56 PM Eastern Standard Time,

awatt04@... writes:

<< I expect Chaz will be correcting you soon on who actually wrote

something with that title. >>

If you check the bibliography of the book, page 194 of the second edition,

you will find the article listed. :-)

[Guest guest]

Doc,

I expect Chaz will be correcting you soon on who actually wrote

something with that title. Assumning you are otherwise right abt Cain,

in general, controlled drinking advocates do not say that ppl *have* to

drink. that would be manifestly silly. many ppl become abstinent wwhen

originally trying a controlled drinking approach like MM. Also, many

ppl attempting abstinence become controlled drinkers. Apparently in

Project MATCH more ppl becoame controlled drinkrs than abstinent -

remarkable, considering that none of the three treatments tested

attempted to achieve this, and the Twelve Step Facilitation version

specifically tries to encourage the belief it is impossible! Needless

to say, the official publications use these ppl as successes while not

acknowledging that controlled drinking, rather than abstinence, was the

more common outcome. Controlled drinkingh is a live and well. I see on

APADiv50 that now even Jim Shirk will soon be using the approach,

though he emphasises not for those dxed as alcohol dependent. However,

there is no formal link between alcohol dependence and disease model

alcoholism - there can't be, as the latter may well not exist, and if

it does no diagnostic technique has been found - and this restriction

is arbitrary.

Pete

d0ct0rdr-@... wrote:

original article:/group/12-step-free/?start=12328

> Cain wrote several articles and a few books. One of his articles was

titled

> " Alcoholics Anonymous: Cult or Cure. " Cain sobered up in AA and then

earned a

> doctorate in psychology. Cain believed in the " addictive

personality, " and

> thought that with his Ph.D. in psychology, he could " cure " that. His

thesis

> was that alcoholism was a mental disease and psychology had the cure.

He

> argued that in order to " prove " you were cured, you had to drink.

Thus,

> starting from a version of the " disease concept, " he ended up

advocating

> " controlled drinking. " Like so many others, he thought that

disproving AA's

> " first-drink theory " lead to the conclusion that alcohol was

harmless. After

> the 60's we don't hear much from him. It is thought that his

controlled

> drinking experiments were ultimately a failure.

[Guest guest]

I wonder if any facilities are still using paraldehyde or chloral

hydrate to detox alkies.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 02/06/2000 3:37:44 PM Eastern Standard Time,

seesharp@... writes:

<< People with problems should be free to choose their own goals. >>

I couldn't agree more. And if people are to have freedom to choose, shouldn't

they have all of the information? Shouldn't they be informed of the failures

as well as the successes? That's what freedom to choose is about. But

actually, I just expected that people would want to know the rest of the

story of Arthur Cain.

<<But, of course, that (and human freedom in general -- we should all be under

" God control, " dontcha know?) is anathema to true-believing 12-steppers.>>

If you are assuming that I am a " true believing 12-stepper, " nothing could be

farther from the truth. My post was factual, not ideological. I'm surprised

that it hit such a nerve with the controlled drinking advocates.

[Guest guest]

Pete Watts wrote:

>Doc,

>I expect Chaz will be correcting you soon on who actually wrote

>something with that title.

Actually, I'd long since decided on the title " Alcoholics Anonymous:

Cult or Cure? " for my book when I ran across Cain's article during

my research. I was quite surprised that someone else had independently

come up with the title. But, I guess that Cain (or one of the magazine

editors) was, like me, a sucker for alliteration.

>Assumning you are otherwise right abt Cain,

>in general, controlled drinking advocates do not say that ppl *have* to

>drink. that would be manifestly silly. many ppl become abstinent wwhen

>originally trying a controlled drinking approach like MM. Also, many

>ppl attempting abstinence become controlled drinkers. Apparently in

>Project MATCH more ppl becoame controlled drinkrs than abstinent -

>remarkable, considering that none of the three treatments tested

>attempted to achieve this, and the Twelve Step Facilitation version

>specifically tries to encourage the belief it is impossible! Needless

>to say, the official publications use these ppl as successes while not

>acknowledging that controlled drinking, rather than abstinence, was the

>more common outcome. Controlled drinkingh is a live and well. I see on

>APADiv50 that now even Jim Shirk will soon be using the approach,

>though he emphasises not for those dxed as alcohol dependent. However,

>there is no formal link between alcohol dependence and disease model

>alcoholism - there can't be, as the latter may well not exist, and if

>it does no diagnostic technique has been found - and this restriction

>is arbitrary.

Quite right. There's a huge amount of data indicating that very

significant

numbers of former problem drinkers (including alcohol-dependent persons)

do resolve their problems through moderation rather than abstinence. In

fact,

the recent, massive National Longitudinal Alcoholism Epidemiological

Survey

(conducted by the Census Bureau) indicates that this is the *standard*

outcome

for untreated formerly alcohol-dependent persons, and that even a high

percentage of

treated formerly alcohol-dependent persons (who are brainwashed into

believing

that it's impossible, and who do, overall, less well than the untreated)

resolve their

problems in this manner.

Twelve-step abstinence hysteria is just that. There's no legitimate

medical reason that abstinence should be the automatic and mandatory

goal for anyone with an alcohol problem. People with problems should be

free to choose their own goals. But, of

course, that (and human freedom in general -- we should all be under

" God control, "

dontcha know?) is anathema to true-believing 12-steppers.

Chaz

http://home.earthlink.net/~seesharp

[Guest guest]

################################################################################\

##########################################################

Quite right. There's a huge amount of data indicating that very

significant numbers of former problem drinkers (including alcohol dependent

persons)do resolve their problems through moderation rather than abstinence.

In fact, the recent, massive National Longitudinal Alcoholism

Epidemiological Survey(conducted by the Census Bureau) indicates that this

is the *standard* outcome for untreated formerly alcohol-dependent persons,

and that even a high percentage of

treated formerly alcohol-dependent persons (who are brainwashed into

believing that it's impossible, and who do, overall, less well than the

untreated) resolve their problems in this manner.

###################################################################

Holy shit, that describes me! Thanks for that affirmation. (and I

didnt get it from Stuart Smalley! ha ha ha)

################################################################################\

##########################################################

_______________________________________________________

Get 100% FREE Internet Access powered by Excite

Visit http://freeworld.excite.com

[Guest guest]

Big Bitch: ASQUITH!

Asquith: yes, Big Bitch!

Big Bitch: get me the phone and dial Doctor Dry's phone number, expedite!

Asquith: yes, Big Bitch! one moment its ringing... hello, Doctor Dry?

Big Bitch: GIVE ME THE FUCKIN' PHONE, NOW!

Asquith: yes, Big Bitch!

Big Bitch: Listen to me you asshole, FUCK OFF.! {click}

damnit Asquith, where are my chocolate cherries?

_______________________________________________________

Get 100% FREE Internet Access powered by Excite

Visit http://freeworld.excite.com

[Guest guest]

What's the source of your information about Cain?

d0ct0rdr-@... wrote:

original article:/group/12-step-free/?start=12372

> In a message dated 02/06/2000 3:37:44 PM Eastern Standard Time,

> seesharp@... writes:

>

> << People with problems should be free to choose their own goals. >>

>

> I couldn't agree more. And if people are to have freedom to choose,

shouldn't

> they have all of the information? Shouldn't they be informed of the

failures

> as well as the successes? That's what freedom to choose is about. But

> actually, I just expected that people would want to know the rest of

the

> story of Arthur Cain.

>

> <<But, of course, that (and human freedom in general -- we should all

be under

> " God control, " dontcha know?) is anathema to true-believing

12-steppers.>>

>

> If you are assuming that I am a " true believing 12-stepper, " nothing

could be

> farther from the truth. My post was factual, not ideological. I'm

surprised

> that it hit such a nerve with the controlled drinking advocates.

[Guest guest]

> If you are assuming that I am a " true believing 12-stepper, " nothing

could be

> farther from the truth. My post was factual, not ideological. I'm

surprised

> that it hit such a nerve with the controlled drinking advocates.

ly, I am not a controlled drinking advocate, nor am I an AA advocate,

nor an advocate for any other " program. " My concern is the individual who

is trying to make sense of conflicting information.

I went into the archives and found your response to the Cain article.

You wrote: Cain wrote several articles and a few books. One of his articles

was titled " Alcoholics Anonymous: Cult or Cure. "

I reply: This comes across as a slam at Bufe's book of the same

title.

You wrote: Cain sobered up in AA and then earned a doctorate in psychology.

Cain believed in the " addictive personality, " and

thought that with his Ph.D. in psychology, he could " cure " that. His thesis

was that alcoholism was a mental disease and psychology had the cure. He

argued that in order to " prove " you were cured, you had to drink. Thus,

starting from a version of the " disease concept, " he ended up advocating

" controlled drinking. " Like so many others, he thought that disproving AA's

" first-drink theory " lead to the conclusion that alcohol was harmless. After

the 60's we don't hear much from him. It is thought that his controlled

drinking experiments were ultimately a failure.

I reply: Please respond to Kayleigh's question. Where do you get your

information? I don't believe you when you say, " I'm surprised that it hit

such a nerve with the controlled drinking advocates. " It sounds like you are

trying to say that moderation is impossible. In fact, your whole post comes

across as pro-AA and anti-everything else. If you don't want us to assume

you're a " true believing 12-stepper, " then you need to try not to sound like

one. My perception of you is based on what you post.

Judith

_______________________________________________________

Get 100% FREE Internet Access powered by Excite

Visit http://freeworld.excite.com

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 02/07/2000 9:19:27 AM Eastern Standard Time,

j_stillwater@... writes:

<< It sounds like you are

trying to say that moderation is impossible. In fact, your whole post comes

across as pro-AA and anti-everything else. If you don't want us to assume

you're a " true believing 12-stepper, " then you need to try not to sound like

one. My perception of you is based on what you post. >>

Judith, your perception is wrong. But you can think what you want, because I

have had it with this list.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 02/07/2000 12:38:23 AM Eastern Standard Time,

kayleighs@... writes:

<< What's the source of your information about Cain? >>

The sources are the writings of Cain himself. Articles: " AA: Cult or Cure? "

in Harper's Magazine, Feb 63, and " Alcoholics Can be Cured Despite AA " in the

Sat. Evening Post, Sep 19, 1964. Books: SEVEN SINNERS (under the pseudonym

Arthur King) 1961, and THE CURED ALCOHOLIC, 1964.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 02/06/2000 6:01:53 PM Eastern Standard Time,

thefez22a@... writes:

<< hello, Doctor Dry?

Big Bitch: GIVE ME THE FUCKIN' PHONE, NOW!

Asquith: yes, Big Bitch!

Big Bitch: Listen to me you asshole, FUCK OFF.! {click} >>

Glad to. I learned long ago from banging my head against the AA wall not to

waste my time with ideologues. Especially those who act like they could be

inebriated. Good by.

[Guest guest]

d0ct0rdr-@... wrote:

original article:/group/12-step-free/?start=12398

> In a message dated 02/07/2000 9:19:27 AM Eastern Standard Time,

> j_stillwater@... writes:

>

> << It sounds like you are

> trying to say that moderation is impossible. In fact, your whole

post comes

> across as pro-AA and anti-everything else. If you don't want us to

assume

> you're a " true believing 12-stepper, " then you need to try not to

sound like

> one. My perception of you is based on what you post. >>

>

> Judith, your perception is wrong. But you can think what you want,

because I

> have had it with this list.

dOctOrder,

If I may, I'd like to jump in on this discussion since it brings up a

couple of important issues. First, I'd like to say that I haven't been

following the list closely, so I'm merely assuming you are a physician.

In any case, my points would be the same if you aren't although if I

knew that I'd present them somewhat differently.

I can certainly understand why you sound like a stepper to many list

members. If you'll take a look at the history section of the American

Society of Addictive Medicine web site (http:\\www.asam.com I believe)

you will find that it is essentially a twelve step front organization.

What is pushed by official medicine (e.g public announcements, slants

on research, choices of research projects) is at the very least heavily

influenced by groupers. The language and arguments used for taking

position on debated issues is simply Programese translated into medical

or psychiatric jargon. They can't say, " Powerlessness " but they can

and do suggest that there is evidence to prove abstinence is superior

to moderation for " real alcoholics. " Your language and way of viewing

alcoholism, from the bit I've seen, seems to be directly lifted from

pronouncements of steppers posing as independent researchers,

psychiatrists, and doctors. No offense intended, but know the source

of what you are repeating.

Another point is that if someone, for instance, wants to do something

so difficult as climbing Mt. Everest, it does _not_ help them do so to

tell them how it may be physically impossible or how feelings of

shortness of breath and muscles pains are proof it can't be done. Were

those beliefs to be accepted by someone making the climb, he would

_never_ reach the summit. Of course, moderating drinking is unlikely

to be as difficult as scaling Everest, but presenting sabotaging ideas

(like visions of failure) _need_ to be rejected. No feat, major or

minor can be accomplished if one is led to believe it can't be done or

isn't worth the effort.

Also, using good reasons to stop and consider and drink less as proof

one can't drink less is counterproductive.

Biological reductionism in the extreme is also a popular 12-step

tactic. It is also very alluring to a lot of people because they'd

rather be " Powerless " than take a hard look at themselves and the

reasons for their behavior. When " alcoholism " (excessive drinking) is

put in the biological camp and allusion or direct reference is made

that one is under the control of invisible biological mechanisms, if

one doesn't categorically reject such ideas they are allowing

themselves to be sabotaged.

Moreover, biological reductionism rarely makes sense in trying to

explain human behavior no less in changing it. Falling in love

certainly can be described in biological terms: hormones, brain

impulses and etc. However, there is more gap, more holes in ones

understanding than understanding without looking at values,

experiences, hopes and dreams.

Many like to sow seeds of despair (thinking they are doing good, of

course) by pointing out the failures of those who choose to moderate.

One classic example is when one of the major news networks covered the

subjects of the Sobell & Sobell controlled-drinking research a number

of years ago. Of twenty or so subjects divided into two groups, one

abstention, one moderation, at the ten year point it was disastrous for

the moderators. Two had died from excessive drinking. The news report

even showed a gravestone to drive home the point that attempting to

moderate kills. What they failed to note was that more people in the

abstinence group died from excessive drinking and the two in the

moderation group who died from drinking had gone on and had abstinence

treatment before their deaths.

Don't take from this that I have any disapproval of abstinence as a

goal. I don't. The little research I've come across (haven't

researched in years) is that younger, single people seem to do better

with moderation while older, married people tend to do better with

abstinence. Also, that people are better able to decide for themselves

which goal to pursue.

Ken Ragge

[Guest guest]

d0ct0rdr-@... wrote:

original article:/group/12-step-free/?start=12372

> In a message dated 02/06/2000 3:37:44 PM Eastern Standard Time,

> seesharp@... writes:

>

> << People with problems should be free to choose their own goals. >>

>

> I couldn't agree more. And if people are to have freedom to choose,

shouldn't

> they have all of the information? Shouldn't they be informed of the

failures

> as well as the successes? That's what freedom to choose is about. But

> actually, I just expected that people would want to know the rest of

the

> story of Arthur Cain.

Doc,

We are forever hearing about the failures of controlled drinking and

abstinence's apparent successes. We even hear about abstinence failures

reported as moderation failures (such as when AA's talk abt their

former inability to stop drinking) and moderation successes reported as

abstinence successes (as in the MATCH outcomes). The bias in reporting

is totally in the reverse direction to the one you are worrying about.

Regarding below, I got no impression whatsoever that Chaz was hinting

you are a stepper. He was addressing me and quoting one of Buchman's

phrases used by early groupers. Nor is there any suggestion he is a

controlled drinking advocate either. Also, the term " advocate " is

confusing, as I emphasise that I know of no-one that tells ppl they

have to drink. Finally, please dont lump us all together even if he is

one - we are different ppl with different opinions.

>

> <<But, of course, that (and human freedom in general -- we should all

be under

> " God control, " dontcha know?) is anathema to true-believing

12-steppers.>>

>

> If you are assuming that I am a " true believing 12-stepper, " nothing

could be

> farther from the truth. My post was factual, not ideological. I'm

surprised

> that it hit such a nerve with the controlled drinking advocates.

[Guest guest]

Fwiw, I am coming to believe that Fez is a stepper troll. Earlier he

posted " my views entirely " after a quote which appears to be from the

63 Harpers article which says things like " I'm not saying anyone should

quit AA and that AA sobers up thousands is obvious " . I would have

though the article is of interest here for the critical comments of AA

subsequently, not this glowing endorsement. This would be bad enough,

but he also quotes it as being said by Joe B., and I doubt very much

Joe B. would say anything like that. Altho some ppl may stay anonymous

here for legitmate reasons, again imo his annonymity is suspicious too.

Ken, I think its time to weild the axe again, imo.

P.

judith stillwater wrote:

original article:/group/12-step-free/?start=12391

> > If you are assuming that I am a " true believing 12-stepper, "

nothing

> could be

> > farther from the truth. My post was factual, not ideological. I'm

> surprised

> > that it hit such a nerve with the controlled drinking advocates.

>

> ly, I am not a controlled drinking advocate, nor am I an AA

advocate,

> nor an advocate for any other " program. " My concern is the

individual who

> is trying to make sense of conflicting information.

>

> I went into the archives and found your response to the Cain article.

>

> You wrote: Cain wrote several articles and a few books. One of his

articles

> was titled " Alcoholics Anonymous: Cult or Cure. "

>

> I reply: This comes across as a slam at Bufe's book of the

same

> title.

>

> You wrote: Cain sobered up in AA and then earned a doctorate in

psychology.

> Cain believed in the " addictive personality, " and

> thought that with his Ph.D. in psychology, he could " cure " that. His

thesis

> was that alcoholism was a mental disease and psychology had the cure.

He

> argued that in order to " prove " you were cured, you had to drink.

Thus,

> starting from a version of the " disease concept, " he ended up

advocating

> " controlled drinking. " Like so many others, he thought that

disproving AA's

> " first-drink theory " lead to the conclusion that alcohol was

harmless. After

> the 60's we don't hear much from him. It is thought that his

controlled

> drinking experiments were ultimately a failure.

>

> I reply: Please respond to Kayleigh's question. Where do you get your

> information? I don't believe you when you say, " I'm surprised that

it hit

> such a nerve with the controlled drinking advocates. " It sounds like

you are

> trying to say that moderation is impossible. In fact, your whole post

comes

> across as pro-AA and anti-everything else. If you don't want us to

assume

> you're a " true believing 12-stepper, " then you need to try not to

sound like

> one. My perception of you is based on what you post.

>

> Judith

>

>

>

>

>

> _______________________________________________________

> Get 100% FREE Internet Access powered by Excite

> Visit http://freeworld.excite.com

>

[Guest guest]

Well at least the Fez has served one useful purpose.

Fwiw, I think this might have been a swipe at me; 'Big Bitch' eating

chocolate cherries with stereotypically English-named flunky Asquith

and all that.

Ironic if the Grouper infiltrator has taken out the Grouper apologist.

P.

d0ct0rdr-@... wrote:

original article:/group/12-step-free/?start=12399

> In a message dated 02/06/2000 6:01:53 PM Eastern Standard Time,

> thefez22a@... writes:

>

> << hello, Doctor Dry?

>

> Big Bitch: GIVE ME THE FUCKIN' PHONE, NOW!

>

> Asquith: yes, Big Bitch!

>

> Big Bitch: Listen to me you asshole, FUCK OFF.! {click} >>

>

> Glad to. I learned long ago from banging my head against the AA wall

not to

> waste my time with ideologues. Especially those who act like they

could be

> inebriated. Good by.

[Guest guest]

At 21:44 07/02/00 -0800, you wrote:

>Fwiw, I am coming to believe that Fez is a stepper troll. Earlier he

>posted " my views entirely " after a quote which appears to be from the

>63 Harpers article which says things like " I'm not saying anyone should

>quit AA and that AA sobers up thousands is obvious " . I would have

>though the article is of interest here for the critical comments of AA

>subsequently, not this glowing endorsement. This would be bad enough,

>but he also quotes it as being said by Joe B., and I doubt very much

>Joe B. would say anything like that. Altho some ppl may stay anonymous

>here for legitmate reasons, again imo his annonymity is suspicious too.

No, I didn't notice that. To set the record straight, I think that 95% of

AA members should quit AA immediately, stop relying on mythology, cult

dynamics and the supernatural and start to take full responsibility for

their own behaviour. The remaining 5% can keep the meetings going for the

few that really do benefit from it. The notion that AA sobers up thousands

is entirely open to debate; it is quite possible that these people are

keeping themselves sober in spite of AA. AND it is quite possible that of

the many people who AA didn't work for, many of them could have sobered up

if it hadn't been for AA's disempowering disease and powerlessness

propaganda being presented as if it were fact.

Joe B.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 02/07/2000 9:24:21 PM Eastern Standard Time,

kenr1@... writes:

<< No offense intended, but know the source

of what you are repeating. >>

Well, you must know me then, because as far as I know what I have to say is

completely original, which is why people have trouble with it, I believe. I

am not a doctor, nor do I belong to ANY group or represent ANY organized

point of view.

I am not against those who are fully informed trying to limit or control

their drinking. It is certainly much better than NOT trying to control it. I

am against moderate drinking being framed as THE alternative to AA. The

resumption of drinking is a serious issue and one that effects not just the

drinker but, on average, four other people, frequently innocent people such

as children.

The scientific comparison of moderation with abstinence only holds from the

point of view of so-called treatment outcomes. If you believe that there is a

" treatment " that has an " outcome " independent of the person's volition, then

those outcomes can be measured. And when measured in that way, moderation

stacks up well against just plain old quitting. From a volitional point of

view, however, 100% of those who choose not to drink avoid alcohol problems

absolutely, while a large percentage of those who choose to drink, 82% to 98%

according to most estimates, continue to have problems related to alcohol.

It doesn't matter what sort of treatment they had or which group they were

in, if they chose not to drink, they avoided alcohol problems completely.

It's that simple.

I can appreciate that those who have chosen to moderate their alcohol, and

are doing so, would be resentful of suggestions that they " can't " or

" shouldn't. " That would make me mad too. I would never go to a moderation

site unless I wanted to support moderation, any more than I would go to a

12-step site for any reason at all.

I think that it is relevant to remind you of how this list is promoted. It is

promoted, not as a moderate drinking group, but as a universal haven from AA.

According to the AA deprogramming site this is: " an excellent discussion

group for those who have left or are considering leaving their 12 step

program. Anyone woo has been traumatized in 12 step treatment will find

solace and support there. Many have called this list a 'life saver.' "

And according to the egroups: " Twelve Step Free Zone is a discussion list for

those who have left the groups or are seriously questioning the 12-step

doctrine. It is also for those who have a loved one caught up in the step

religion. The focus of discussion is on sharing experience with and

information on the step groups. Perhaps our most important function is to

provide the first place where many can dare be critical and not be accused by

a " unanimous majority " of groupers of suffering from one 'defect of

character' or another for doing so. Although not the focus here, information

on alternative organizations and methods of resolving drinking problems are

available for the asking. "

I do think that it is inappropriate for this list not to acknowledge right up

front that it promotes and encourages moderate drinking as its preferred

alternative to AA. That certainly would have avoided some misunderstandings

on my part.

Judith, there was nothing wrong with your questions. I was just out of

patience and couldn't deal anymore with the list's witch hunt for " groupers. "

I'm sorry. For those who offered some encouragement, thank you. I may be

reachable off list. d0ct0rdry@... (note the zeros)

I'm unsubscribed. Bye,

Doc