Guest guest Posted June 5, 2001 Report Share Posted June 5, 2001 This is true. He considers peele a "lackey of the wine industry" becuase he wrote a pamphlet indicating the health benefits of moderate wine consumption. In reply Peele pointed out (among other things) that the wine industry does not support moderation approaches to alcohol problems and instead is supportive of AA. Marty does not come to SOS (LifeRing Secular Recovery, actually) from AA. Marty is one of the first people to mercifully have been offered an alternative to AA in rehab, and has never spent one single minute in an AA meeting. LSR does advocate abstinence, and suggests that for those who don't feel they need to shoot for that that they go elsewhere, to MM or such. I do not by any means agree with Marty on all things. As to his credentials, I know he is a lawyer, but he also holds a pile of Masters Degrees, and I frankly don't know whether any of them are in an addiction-related field. But whatever else you wish to say about him, his thinking is not in the least tainted by AA. He has zero, and I do mean zero, use for XA. --Mona-- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 5, 2001 Report Share Posted June 5, 2001 Having zero use for AA does not mean one is not basing much of what one believes on "scientific fact" that originates with Marty Mann, E.M. Jellinek and AA. This is no doubt true, but Marty is a totally self-directed individual, and not the least prone to accepting conventional wisdom in any area. Like most LSR members -- and unlike founder -- Marty does not buy the disease theory of alcohol dependency. He is well able to comprehend that much put forward about alcoholism is heavily influenced by steppism, and where and how that is true. I cannot speak for him, of course, but my strong suspicion is that Marty embraces abstinence for the same reason my vibes say the rest of us in LSR do: it may be the only way to avoid alcohol dependency. If we actually do not require abstinence, we have suffered no significant loss by embracing it, and we may have avoided very adverse consequences. Indeed, I personally think Marty and LSR are in some respects more zealous than the Pope when it comes to AA. Even AA does not demand that the recovering alcoholic abstain from pot. Many members may take a dim view of toking, but they won't deny one his or her sobriety time for doing so. Not so in LSR, a policy with which I personally disagree, but which I would not repudiate in public while representing LSR, as an AA spokesperson would be free to do. --Mona-- --Mona-- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 5, 2001 Report Share Posted June 5, 2001 Pete In reply Peele pointed out (among other things) that the wine industry does not support moderation approaches to alcohol problems and instead is supportive of AA. Why would they do a thing like this? An interpretation could be that they still is sticking to the 1939 agreement, becuase it says that alcohol is only harmful to people with the 'wrong' genes. AA supports this view, and then they support AA. Therefore Stanton must be a lakay to the alcohol industry!! Bjørn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 5, 2001 Report Share Posted June 5, 2001 My point is that the wine industry has learned from earlier mistakes. Before prohibition they grossly underestimated their adversaries, and now they're doing the same mistake because they're trying to avoid it. AA is so dominant, that the wine industry couldn't live with a support to AA critical views. They are in bed with their enemy. As the saying goes: "Keep your friends close to you, and your enemies even closer." Bjørn Re: Attn: KEN Hey BjornStanton Peele's popint though was that his view doesnt concur with that of the wine industry as regards problem drinking - he supports moderation approaches and is very critical of AA.P.> Pete> > In reply Peele pointed out (among other things) > that the wine industry does not support moderation approaches to > alcohol problems and instead is supportive of AA.> > Why would they do a thing like this?> > An interpretation could be that they still is sticking to the 1939 agreement, becuase it says that alcohol is only harmful to people with the 'wrong' genes.> > AA supports this view, and then they support AA.> > Therefore Stanton must be a lakay to the alcohol industry!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 5, 2001 Report Share Posted June 5, 2001 MonaHolland@... wrote: > In a message dated 6/5/01 12:04:53 PM US Eastern Standard Time, > watts_pete@... writes: > > > >> This is true. He considers peele a " lackey of the wine industry " >> becuase he wrote a pamphlet indicating the health benefits of >> moderate >> wine consumption. In reply Peele pointed out (among other things) >> that the wine industry does not support moderation approaches to >> alcohol problems and instead is supportive of AA. > > Marty does not come to SOS (LifeRing Secular Recovery, actually) from > AA. > Marty is one of the first people to mercifully have been offered an > alternative to AA in rehab, and has never spent one single minute in > an AA > meeting. LSR does advocate abstinence, and suggests that for those > who don't > feel they need to shoot for that that they go elsewhere, to MM or > such. > > I do not by any means agree with Marty on all things. As to his > credentials, > I know he is a lawyer, but he also holds a pile of Masters Degrees, > and I > frankly don't know whether any of them are in an addiction-related > field. > But whatever else you wish to say about him, his thinking is not in > the least > tainted by AA. He has zero, and I do mean zero, use for XA. > > --Mona-- > Mona, It would be impossible to be in the U.S. and _not_ have one's views of alcoholism influenced by AA. " Alcoholism science " was more or less founded by Marty Mann (AA member who originally founded what was to become the NCADD) and E.M. Jellinek. Early AAs took a questionairre distributed through the AA Grapevine to Jellinek. Jellinek used some of the responses to formulate the disease. Jellinek did not have the credentials he claimed. (Ron Roizen roizen.com) In the intervening decades, it became virtually impossible for any researcher critical of the fundamentals of disease theory that also conflicted with AA's disease to work (no less publish). Meanwhile, groupers presented the disease as impartial scientific observers from behind the veil of anonymity. The American Society of Addictive Medicine itself was founded under the umbrella of Marty Mann's NCADD. Moreover, the mass media more and more presented only twelve step views of " disease " as scientific fact in news reports, dramas and even sitcoms. Having zero use for AA does not mean one is not basing much of what one believes on " scientific fact " that originates with Marty Mann, E.M. Jellinek and AA. Ken Ragge Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 5, 2001 Report Share Posted June 5, 2001 MonaHolland@... wrote: > In a message dated 6/5/01 1:44:55 PM US Eastern Standard Time, > kenr1@... > writes: > > > >> Having zero use for AA does not mean one is not basing much of what >> one >> believes on " scientific fact " that originates with Marty Mann, E.M. >> Jellinek and AA. > > This is no doubt true, but Marty is a totally self-directed > individual, and > not the least prone to accepting conventional wisdom in any area. > Like most > LSR members -- and unlike founder -- Marty does not > buy the > disease theory of alcohol dependency. He is well able to comprehend > that > much put forward about alcoholism is heavily influenced by steppism, > and > where and how that is true. > > I cannot speak for him, of course, but my strong suspicion is that > Marty > embraces abstinence for the same reason my vibes say the rest of us in > LSR > do: it may be the only way to avoid alcohol dependency. If we > actually do > not require abstinence, we have suffered no significant loss by > embracing it, > and we may have avoided very adverse consequences. > Mona, I'm not arguing with SOS's abstinence stand or whether it is right and proper for those who go to SOS to abstain. I would, however, take issue with Marty's position " Ragge's pop-psych etiology leads up to the irresponsible conclusion in Ch. 15 that the drinker is probably better served by aiming for moderation than for abstinence. Audrey Kishline's work, which attempts to draw a clear line of demarcation between alcoholics and problem drinkers, is a model of clinical responsibility by comparison. " He is not talking about whether SOS members (or anyone else who decides to) need to abstain. He is talking about other people. I'm very curious and probably should have asked him when I had the opportunity, how I am taking sides for moderation over abstinence. When I wrote it, I was _very_ careful not to side with one over the other. It is an issue of its own, " Why do people who go to 'support groups' that support abstinence have such difficulty with people who choose to not abstain or decide to not abstain completely? " I don't believe I've _ever_ met anyone who quit " alone " who sees a great deal of significant to whether someone else who drinks excessively decides to moderate or abstain. > > Indeed, I personally think Marty and LSR are in some respects more > zealous > than the Pope when it comes to AA. Even AA does not demand that the > recovering alcoholic abstain from pot. Perhaps LSR, having demoted God feels the need to elevate the Devil. As far as AA demanding, certainly in meetings, it is unusual for AA to " demand " anything. Will speaker after speaker tell their " personal experience " of how they almost died or how a dear friend died because they smoke pot in response to someone sharing that they think smoking is ok? Of course. Will the groupers sitting around after meeting coffee all get a look of fear in their eyes and use other body language to transmit the danger of which the pot smoker is speaking followed by a verbal " You have to decide for yourself " ? Of course. It is highly unlikely that _anything_ is demanded in a meeting. Of course, their is exhortation interspersed with suggestion, but demanding would be totally out of context. > Many members may take a dim view of > toking, but they won't deny one his or her sobriety time for doing so. Doubtless, there are meetings where that is the case. And, of course, there are probably Catholic congregations somewhere that don't believe in the Virgin Birth. Ken Ragge > Not > so in LSR, a policy with which I personally disagree, but which I > would not > repudiate in public while representing LSR, as an AA spokesperson > would be > free to do. > > --Mona-- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 5, 2001 Report Share Posted June 5, 2001 At 01:21 PM 6/5/01 -0700, Ken wrote: >He is not talking about whether SOS members (or anyone else who decides >to) need to abstain. He is talking about other people. I'm very >curious and probably should have asked him when I had the opportunity, >how I am taking sides for moderation over abstinence. When I wrote it, >I was _very_ careful not to side with one over the other. > >It is an issue of its own, " Why do people who go to 'support groups' >that support abstinence have such difficulty with people who choose to >not abstain or decide to not abstain completely? " I think it may be a fear of themselves going back to 'the old way of life' - seeing other people using a 'demonized' substance (especially without negative consequences) may put the horrible feeling in their own mind that 'it might be okay for me too'. It's an overreaction. I felt somewhat that way my first couple of years in AA, and saw it to extremes in others. Seeing an intoxicated person, or simply someone enjoying an alcoholic beverage, would often result in " There but for the Grace of God go I " , but never in " Live and Let Live. " >> Even AA does not demand that the >> recovering alcoholic abstain from pot. > >As far as AA demanding, certainly in meetings, it is unusual for AA to > " demand " anything. Will speaker after speaker tell their " personal >experience " of how they almost died or how a dear friend died because >they smoke pot in response to someone sharing that they think smoking is >ok? Of course. Will the groupers sitting around after meeting coffee >all get a look of fear in their eyes and use other body language to >transmit the danger of which the pot smoker is speaking followed by a >verbal " You have to decide for yourself " ? Of course. It is highly >unlikely that _anything_ is demanded in a meeting. Of course, their is >exhortation interspersed with suggestion, but demanding would be totally >out of context. True, it is 'recovery from the disease' that demands 'rigorous honesty'; AA just has '12 suggestions' of how to do that. :-/ The official in-the-meeting response to " I took a toke a few days ago " is to interrupt the speaker before he can utter another word and say " This is ALCOHOLICS Anonymous, and it is against Our Traditions to discusss Outside Issues in a meeting of ALCOHOLICS Anonymous. Please, let us stick with The Traditions which have served AA so well for so long. Who's next? " The topic of such a meeting could easily turn to one or all of the AA traditions. There could be even more 'sharing' with the toker after the meeting (if he doesn't sneak out before then), such as " you know, smoking pot was really keeping me from getting the spiritual aspects of This Program, and I had to quit it if I were to honestly call myself sober. Of course, you're an alcoholic and will do whatever you want to do. I just thought I'd share my experience with you. " ----- This post (except quoted portions) Copyright 2001, Ben Bradley. http://listen.to/benbradley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 6, 2001 Report Share Posted June 6, 2001 Ben Bradley wrote: <---snip---> > > > True, it is 'recovery from the disease' that demands 'rigorous honesty'; > AA just has '12 suggestions' of how to do that. :-/ > The official in-the-meeting response to " I took a toke a few days ago " > is to interrupt the speaker before he can utter another word and say " This > is ALCOHOLICS Anonymous, and it is against Our Traditions to discusss > Outside Issues in a meeting of ALCOHOLICS Anonymous. Please, let us stick > with The Traditions which have served AA so well for so long. Who's next? " > The topic of such a meeting could easily turn to one or all of the AA > traditions. > There could be even more 'sharing' with the toker after the meeting > (if he doesn't sneak out before then), such as " you know, smoking pot > was really keeping me from getting the spiritual aspects of This Program, > and I had to quit it if I were to honestly call myself sober. Of course, > you're an alcoholic and will do whatever you want to do. I just thought > I'd share my experience with you. " Ben, Something I used to do toward the end of my AA days, was sharing something in contradiction to doctrine just to change the subject to whatever my heresy was. Ken 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.