Re: RR/AA

[Guest guest]

>

RR no longer holds meetings. They stopped them about two years ago.

Some people may still be holding some sort of meeting, but not with

the approval of RR.

> >RR holds NO meetings. This discussion is centered around RR's

position that

> >groups are useless (or even harmful). Where did you get this data

about " RR

> >meetings " ?

>

> From their web site. I just tried to go there, to quote from the

web site,

> but it wouldn't load and froze up my computer. I tried 3 times and

it kept

> freezing my computer, so I can't access the web site. But RR

meetings in

> San are held Wednesdays at 6 PM. Yes, they're meetings to

learn

> about RR and learn AVRT, but they're meetings nonetheless.

>

> >Very few people " choose " AA in any manner. Add up the percentage

who are

> >coerced by courts or family interventions.

>

> Which is 50% or less of those in attendance.

>

> >Numeric profiles of various groups mean very little. As the

numbers of AA

> >groups expand in number, it is safe to conclude that addiction is

simply

> >becoming more of a problem, and statistics seem to support this.

>

> Why do you say this? I don't believe incest is any more common than

it was

> 100 years ago; in fact, I belive it's actually *less* common. But

it's more

> often reported. Spousal abuse is less common today than it was 150

years

> ago (though it's still too darned common), but it's reported more

often

> today. 150 years ago, it was not a crime to beat your wife. In

fact, it

> still wasn't a crime in many states until the 1970s, and there were

no

> places for abused women to go--I believe the first shelters opened

up in

> the late 60's or early '70s. It was almost never prosecuted. Police

> returned women to their homes, to the custody of their husbands who

had

> just beat them up. Churches told women that a good wife takes

whatever her

> husband gives her, and if she was a good wife, her husband wouldn't

beat

> her (some churches still send this message--I remember one woman

whose

> husband beat her with a baseball bat and her minister said it was

because

> she wasn't a good enough wife.) Men had the right to rape their

wives in a

> number of states (Oklahoma and New Mexico among them) up until at

least

> 1987, and perhaps still do today. Spousal rape used to never be

reported,

> because it was not considered a crime, and because a woman would be

laughed

> away if she complained about her husband demanding and forcing sex

from

> him. Just because it's more often reported today, does not mean

it's more

> common. So more people recognize they have an alcohol problem now

than they

> did 50 years ago--so? So DWI is a crime now, whereas 30 years ago

it was an

> excuse-- " Oh, he had been drinking. The accident's not his fault. "

Plus,

> drug use wasn't near as common 50 years ago as it is today. My dad,

who

> fought in the Korean war, never saw drugs, never knew anyone who

did drugs

> (he might have known someone who smoked pot, but only as someone to

stay

> away from.) And my dad was no saint. Drug use just wasn't that

common.

> Alcohol use, however, was. Just because there are more people

seeking help

> for a problem today, does not mean that the problem is more common.

[Guest guest]

At 01:38 AM 2/6/01 -0600, you wrote:

> >Numeric profiles of various groups mean very little. As the numbers of AA

> >groups expand in number, it is safe to conclude that addiction is simply

> >becoming more of a problem, and statistics seem to support this.

>

>Why do you say this?

Disease dogma holds that

1.) 10% of the population suffers from the disease of alcoholism.

2.) This has always been true, but it used to be more hidden.

3.) Alcoholism inevitably leads to " jails, institutions, and death "

without AA.

The logical conclusion from these beliefs is that one person in

ten died a drunkard's death before AA appeared to rescue

civilization.

Since this conclusion is patently absurd, though, it makes more

sense to question the premises. Have addiction rates really

remained constantly high, with such dire consequences? The

more common-sense view is that, while people have always

consumed alcohol, the phenomenon of widespread addiction

is relatively recent.

Plus,

>drug use wasn't near as common 50 years ago as it is today. My dad, who

>fought in the Korean war, never saw drugs, never knew anyone who did drugs

> (he might have known someone who smoked pot, but only as someone to stay

>away from.) And my dad was no saint. Drug use just wasn't that common.

Writing about his young years in the 1920's, Heinlein had

this to say: " My teens were in the Torrid Twenties, and exactly the

same things went on then as now . . . but were kept under cover.

When I was a freshman in college, the nearest connection for

marijuana was a drugstore a hundred yards off campus; for H

or C it was necessary to walk another block. "

Drug use has always been common, with greater or lesser

degrees of concealment. It's drug *addiction* which has

skyrocketed, much as with alcohol.

[Guest guest]

At 01:38 AM 2/6/01 -0600, you wrote:

> >Numeric profiles of various groups mean very little. As the numbers of AA

> >groups expand in number, it is safe to conclude that addiction is simply

> >becoming more of a problem, and statistics seem to support this.

>

>Why do you say this?

Disease dogma holds that

1.) 10% of the population suffers from the disease of alcoholism.

2.) This has always been true, but it used to be more hidden.

3.) Alcoholism inevitably leads to " jails, institutions, and death "

without AA.

The logical conclusion from these beliefs is that one person in

ten died a drunkard's death before AA appeared to rescue

civilization.

Since this conclusion is patently absurd, though, it makes more

sense to question the premises. Have addiction rates really

remained constantly high, with such dire consequences? The

more common-sense view is that, while people have always

consumed alcohol, the phenomenon of widespread addiction

is relatively recent.

Plus,

>drug use wasn't near as common 50 years ago as it is today. My dad, who

>fought in the Korean war, never saw drugs, never knew anyone who did drugs

> (he might have known someone who smoked pot, but only as someone to stay

>away from.) And my dad was no saint. Drug use just wasn't that common.

Writing about his young years in the 1920's, Heinlein had

this to say: " My teens were in the Torrid Twenties, and exactly the

same things went on then as now . . . but were kept under cover.

When I was a freshman in college, the nearest connection for

marijuana was a drugstore a hundred yards off campus; for H

or C it was necessary to walk another block. "

Drug use has always been common, with greater or lesser

degrees of concealment. It's drug *addiction* which has

skyrocketed, much as with alcohol.

[Guest guest]

When I first read the original comments I thought it was a function of the

diagnostic criteria changing which leads to the increase in the diagnosis.

> Re: Re: RR/AA

>

>

>At 01:38 AM 2/6/01 -0600, you wrote:

>> >Numeric profiles of various groups mean very little. As the

>numbers of AA

>> >groups expand in number, it is safe to conclude that addiction is simply

>> >becoming more of a problem, and statistics seem to support this.

>>

>

>Since this conclusion is patently absurd, though, it makes more

>sense to question the premises. Have addiction rates really

>remained constantly high, with such dire consequences? The

>more common-sense view is that, while people have always

>consumed alcohol, the phenomenon of widespread addiction

>is relatively recent.

>Plus,

>

[Guest guest]

When I first read the original comments I thought it was a function of the

diagnostic criteria changing which leads to the increase in the diagnosis.

> Re: Re: RR/AA

>

>

>At 01:38 AM 2/6/01 -0600, you wrote:

>> >Numeric profiles of various groups mean very little. As the

>numbers of AA

>> >groups expand in number, it is safe to conclude that addiction is simply

>> >becoming more of a problem, and statistics seem to support this.

>>

>

>Since this conclusion is patently absurd, though, it makes more

>sense to question the premises. Have addiction rates really

>remained constantly high, with such dire consequences? The

>more common-sense view is that, while people have always

>consumed alcohol, the phenomenon of widespread addiction

>is relatively recent.

>Plus,

>

[Guest guest]

When I first read the original comments I thought it was a function of the

diagnostic criteria changing which leads to the increase in the diagnosis.

> Re: Re: RR/AA

>

>

>At 01:38 AM 2/6/01 -0600, you wrote:

>> >Numeric profiles of various groups mean very little. As the

>numbers of AA

>> >groups expand in number, it is safe to conclude that addiction is simply

>> >becoming more of a problem, and statistics seem to support this.

>>

>

>Since this conclusion is patently absurd, though, it makes more

>sense to question the premises. Have addiction rates really

>remained constantly high, with such dire consequences? The

>more common-sense view is that, while people have always

>consumed alcohol, the phenomenon of widespread addiction

>is relatively recent.

>Plus,

>

[Guest guest]

Hello,

I read RR and was trying to implement it in my life.

Well I ended up drinking. I know AA doesnt work for me but I m worried because it seems nothing does. What I dont buy about RR is: nutrition doesnt matter, it doesnt matter what your socio-economic class is (most addicted people are low income level).

Im confused, and I hope this question doesnt offend anyone but Im wondering if it is true that some of us are more late stage than others. I mean Ive been drinking on and off for over half of my life and all it has done in the last 9 years is cause me pain.

Why would I drink again? Its like I cant stop myself once I feel that

intense urge to drink. Im confuseed though because I dont buy the whole AA concept that im just selfish and self-centered. I know better than to drink but why cant I stop? I blackout ive lost my license for 4 years, I almost got kicked out of my apt for turning the music so loud I want to quit but I cant seem to. In the past Ive put myself in inpatient tx centers to dry out. But I need to do this out of institutions or I will never be able to.

Have any of the people on here had their lives turned upside down from alcohol? If so how did you stay sober? All suggestion are welcome.

[Guest guest]

Hello,

I read RR and was trying to implement it in my life.

Well I ended up drinking. I know AA doesnt work for me but I m worried because it seems nothing does. What I dont buy about RR is: nutrition doesnt matter, it doesnt matter what your socio-economic class is (most addicted people are low income level).

Im confused, and I hope this question doesnt offend anyone but Im wondering if it is true that some of us are more late stage than others. I mean Ive been drinking on and off for over half of my life and all it has done in the last 9 years is cause me pain.

Why would I drink again? Its like I cant stop myself once I feel that

intense urge to drink. Im confuseed though because I dont buy the whole AA concept that im just selfish and self-centered. I know better than to drink but why cant I stop? I blackout ive lost my license for 4 years, I almost got kicked out of my apt for turning the music so loud I want to quit but I cant seem to. In the past Ive put myself in inpatient tx centers to dry out. But I need to do this out of institutions or I will never be able to.

Have any of the people on here had their lives turned upside down from alcohol? If so how did you stay sober? All suggestion are welcome.

[Guest guest]

>>Why do you say this?

>

>Disease dogma holds that

>1.) 10% of the population suffers from the disease of alcoholism.

>2.) This has always been true, but it used to be more hidden.

>3.) Alcoholism inevitably leads to " jails, institutions, and death "

> without AA.

>

>The logical conclusion from these beliefs is that one person in

>ten died a drunkard's death before AA appeared to rescue

>civilization.

>

>Since this conclusion is patently absurd, though, it makes more

>sense to question the premises. Have addiction rates really

>remained constantly high, with such dire consequences? The

>more common-sense view is that, while people have always

>consumed alcohol, the phenomenon of widespread addiction

>is relatively recent.

I believe there is plenty of evidence to show that people have always been

addicted. One need only read literature from the 19th, 18th, and 17th

centuries. Since we have no empirical data from those years, our evidence

has to come from jail records, literature, and historical accounts. Bonney

Prince Charlie may well have lost the battle at Culloden due to

alcoholism--it is certain that the drinking and partying he did the night

before did not help his forces at all. (That they had only broadswords

against the English guns, and they had to run through 150 yards or so of

dense heather, did not help matters either. But not having recovered from a

long march and great partying the day before weakened them all the more.)

But historical accounts are replete with tales of drunkenness, in such

inopportune times that a non-addicted person would not have allowed himself

to get drunk. I don't think alcoholism was 'hidden' at all--certainly in my

travels and what I've learned of life in Britain, Germany, Spain, and

Mexico (including a class on Latin America from pre-Columbian times to the

late 1800s) drunkeness was common. How many people were *addicted*, it's

hard to tell--but when the same person is drunk night after night, it's

pretty safe to say he's addicted.

Do we have a phenonmenon of widespread addiction? I doubt it's any more

widespread than in previous centuries. Perhaps more widespread amongst

women, as women are able to get out more, and less likely to be stoned to

death or drowned for being drunk. (It was a far worse crime for women than

for men.) And we have drugs now, which were not nearly so widespread as

before. I've seen citations that show that upwards of 50% or more of high

school students have smoked pot (especially now, since drugs are easier to

get than alcohol is, according to some teens I've talked to.) And while

there have always been drugs to some degree, they were not nearly so

concentrated--we have cocaine, instead of chewing coca leaves. We have

speed, a manufactured drug. And ecstasy, and GHB, and PCP, and LSD. And I

hear that marijuana is stronger, the THC more concentrated, than it was 30

years ago. And, I do believe, drugs were simply not as common in the

earlier part of this century as they are today. Oh, sure, port cities,

especially those on the west coast, could get opium, and there was the

occasional marijuana. But my dad, not exactly a virtuous soul in his

teenage years, never saw marijuana or any other drug (save alcohol, lots of

it.) I've heard the same thing from many other people his age. It may have

been obtainable if you went looking for it, but it was not commonplace. I

didn't have to seek out marijuana, and I sure didn't seek out whatever drug

someone slipped in my drink one time. LSD is a manufactured drug that made

its appearance in, what, the late 1950's?

Of course, the bit about alcoholism always leading to jails, institutions,

and death is patently false. It usually leads to misery. Being with an

alcoholic is no fun--take it from someone with experience. I have no desire

to live my life with an alcholic, which is why I'm searching so hard for a

way that will help my boyfriend shake the addiction. It certainly *can*

lead to jail, and even institutions, though that's in a minority of the

cases. Many alcoholics die alcoholics. Or they quit a few months before

they die, like my boyfriend's stepfather did. But it was too late. The

damage was done, and he died a horrible painful death 4 or 5 months later.

Would that he would have quit drinking when it would have still have done

some good, and before the pattern was set for his son and his stepson, both

of whom are addicts, both of whom have been non-functional. (B.'s stepdad,

on the other hand, was a successful, highly paid engineer, who kept his

alcoholism hidden from his coworkers but not from his family.) When he came

to Texas at the age of 24, B. had spent 2 years in jail already due to

DUIs. He got his GED in jail after having dropped out of high school,

because school got in the way of his drinking. His brother, age 21, dropped

out, never got his GED, hasn't held a job for longer than a month or two,

is in and out of jail, hasn't had a stable place to live since his dad died

and gets thrown out of his friends' houses because of his drug use--all

because his addiction is the most important thing in his life. So yeah,

alcoholism can lead to jail and even prison. It's not inevitable, however.

[Guest guest]

>>Why do you say this?

>

>Disease dogma holds that

>1.) 10% of the population suffers from the disease of alcoholism.

>2.) This has always been true, but it used to be more hidden.

>3.) Alcoholism inevitably leads to " jails, institutions, and death "

> without AA.

>

>The logical conclusion from these beliefs is that one person in

>ten died a drunkard's death before AA appeared to rescue

>civilization.

>

>Since this conclusion is patently absurd, though, it makes more

>sense to question the premises. Have addiction rates really

>remained constantly high, with such dire consequences? The

>more common-sense view is that, while people have always

>consumed alcohol, the phenomenon of widespread addiction

>is relatively recent.

I believe there is plenty of evidence to show that people have always been

addicted. One need only read literature from the 19th, 18th, and 17th

centuries. Since we have no empirical data from those years, our evidence

has to come from jail records, literature, and historical accounts. Bonney

Prince Charlie may well have lost the battle at Culloden due to

alcoholism--it is certain that the drinking and partying he did the night

before did not help his forces at all. (That they had only broadswords

against the English guns, and they had to run through 150 yards or so of

dense heather, did not help matters either. But not having recovered from a

long march and great partying the day before weakened them all the more.)

But historical accounts are replete with tales of drunkenness, in such

inopportune times that a non-addicted person would not have allowed himself

to get drunk. I don't think alcoholism was 'hidden' at all--certainly in my

travels and what I've learned of life in Britain, Germany, Spain, and

Mexico (including a class on Latin America from pre-Columbian times to the

late 1800s) drunkeness was common. How many people were *addicted*, it's

hard to tell--but when the same person is drunk night after night, it's

pretty safe to say he's addicted.

Do we have a phenonmenon of widespread addiction? I doubt it's any more

widespread than in previous centuries. Perhaps more widespread amongst

women, as women are able to get out more, and less likely to be stoned to

death or drowned for being drunk. (It was a far worse crime for women than

for men.) And we have drugs now, which were not nearly so widespread as

before. I've seen citations that show that upwards of 50% or more of high

school students have smoked pot (especially now, since drugs are easier to

get than alcohol is, according to some teens I've talked to.) And while

there have always been drugs to some degree, they were not nearly so

concentrated--we have cocaine, instead of chewing coca leaves. We have

speed, a manufactured drug. And ecstasy, and GHB, and PCP, and LSD. And I

hear that marijuana is stronger, the THC more concentrated, than it was 30

years ago. And, I do believe, drugs were simply not as common in the

earlier part of this century as they are today. Oh, sure, port cities,

especially those on the west coast, could get opium, and there was the

occasional marijuana. But my dad, not exactly a virtuous soul in his

teenage years, never saw marijuana or any other drug (save alcohol, lots of

it.) I've heard the same thing from many other people his age. It may have

been obtainable if you went looking for it, but it was not commonplace. I

didn't have to seek out marijuana, and I sure didn't seek out whatever drug

someone slipped in my drink one time. LSD is a manufactured drug that made

its appearance in, what, the late 1950's?

Of course, the bit about alcoholism always leading to jails, institutions,

and death is patently false. It usually leads to misery. Being with an

alcoholic is no fun--take it from someone with experience. I have no desire

to live my life with an alcholic, which is why I'm searching so hard for a

way that will help my boyfriend shake the addiction. It certainly *can*

lead to jail, and even institutions, though that's in a minority of the

cases. Many alcoholics die alcoholics. Or they quit a few months before

they die, like my boyfriend's stepfather did. But it was too late. The

damage was done, and he died a horrible painful death 4 or 5 months later.

Would that he would have quit drinking when it would have still have done

some good, and before the pattern was set for his son and his stepson, both

of whom are addicts, both of whom have been non-functional. (B.'s stepdad,

on the other hand, was a successful, highly paid engineer, who kept his

alcoholism hidden from his coworkers but not from his family.) When he came

to Texas at the age of 24, B. had spent 2 years in jail already due to

DUIs. He got his GED in jail after having dropped out of high school,

because school got in the way of his drinking. His brother, age 21, dropped

out, never got his GED, hasn't held a job for longer than a month or two,

is in and out of jail, hasn't had a stable place to live since his dad died

and gets thrown out of his friends' houses because of his drug use--all

because his addiction is the most important thing in his life. So yeah,

alcoholism can lead to jail and even prison. It's not inevitable, however.

[Guest guest]

>>Why do you say this?

>

>Disease dogma holds that

>1.) 10% of the population suffers from the disease of alcoholism.

>2.) This has always been true, but it used to be more hidden.

>3.) Alcoholism inevitably leads to " jails, institutions, and death "

> without AA.

>

>The logical conclusion from these beliefs is that one person in

>ten died a drunkard's death before AA appeared to rescue

>civilization.

>

>Since this conclusion is patently absurd, though, it makes more

>sense to question the premises. Have addiction rates really

>remained constantly high, with such dire consequences? The

>more common-sense view is that, while people have always

>consumed alcohol, the phenomenon of widespread addiction

>is relatively recent.

I believe there is plenty of evidence to show that people have always been

addicted. One need only read literature from the 19th, 18th, and 17th

centuries. Since we have no empirical data from those years, our evidence

has to come from jail records, literature, and historical accounts. Bonney

Prince Charlie may well have lost the battle at Culloden due to

alcoholism--it is certain that the drinking and partying he did the night

before did not help his forces at all. (That they had only broadswords

against the English guns, and they had to run through 150 yards or so of

dense heather, did not help matters either. But not having recovered from a

long march and great partying the day before weakened them all the more.)

But historical accounts are replete with tales of drunkenness, in such

inopportune times that a non-addicted person would not have allowed himself

to get drunk. I don't think alcoholism was 'hidden' at all--certainly in my

travels and what I've learned of life in Britain, Germany, Spain, and

Mexico (including a class on Latin America from pre-Columbian times to the

late 1800s) drunkeness was common. How many people were *addicted*, it's

hard to tell--but when the same person is drunk night after night, it's

pretty safe to say he's addicted.

Do we have a phenonmenon of widespread addiction? I doubt it's any more

widespread than in previous centuries. Perhaps more widespread amongst

women, as women are able to get out more, and less likely to be stoned to

death or drowned for being drunk. (It was a far worse crime for women than

for men.) And we have drugs now, which were not nearly so widespread as

before. I've seen citations that show that upwards of 50% or more of high

school students have smoked pot (especially now, since drugs are easier to

get than alcohol is, according to some teens I've talked to.) And while

there have always been drugs to some degree, they were not nearly so

concentrated--we have cocaine, instead of chewing coca leaves. We have

speed, a manufactured drug. And ecstasy, and GHB, and PCP, and LSD. And I

hear that marijuana is stronger, the THC more concentrated, than it was 30

years ago. And, I do believe, drugs were simply not as common in the

earlier part of this century as they are today. Oh, sure, port cities,

especially those on the west coast, could get opium, and there was the

occasional marijuana. But my dad, not exactly a virtuous soul in his

teenage years, never saw marijuana or any other drug (save alcohol, lots of

it.) I've heard the same thing from many other people his age. It may have

been obtainable if you went looking for it, but it was not commonplace. I

didn't have to seek out marijuana, and I sure didn't seek out whatever drug

someone slipped in my drink one time. LSD is a manufactured drug that made

its appearance in, what, the late 1950's?

Of course, the bit about alcoholism always leading to jails, institutions,

and death is patently false. It usually leads to misery. Being with an

alcoholic is no fun--take it from someone with experience. I have no desire

to live my life with an alcholic, which is why I'm searching so hard for a

way that will help my boyfriend shake the addiction. It certainly *can*

lead to jail, and even institutions, though that's in a minority of the

cases. Many alcoholics die alcoholics. Or they quit a few months before

they die, like my boyfriend's stepfather did. But it was too late. The

damage was done, and he died a horrible painful death 4 or 5 months later.

Would that he would have quit drinking when it would have still have done

some good, and before the pattern was set for his son and his stepson, both

of whom are addicts, both of whom have been non-functional. (B.'s stepdad,

on the other hand, was a successful, highly paid engineer, who kept his

alcoholism hidden from his coworkers but not from his family.) When he came

to Texas at the age of 24, B. had spent 2 years in jail already due to

DUIs. He got his GED in jail after having dropped out of high school,

because school got in the way of his drinking. His brother, age 21, dropped

out, never got his GED, hasn't held a job for longer than a month or two,

is in and out of jail, hasn't had a stable place to live since his dad died

and gets thrown out of his friends' houses because of his drug use--all

because his addiction is the most important thing in his life. So yeah,

alcoholism can lead to jail and even prison. It's not inevitable, however.

[Guest guest]

At 01:04 AM 2/7/01 EST, GrahJAG@... wrote:

>Hello,

>

> I read RR and was trying to implement it in my life.

>Well I ended up drinking. I know AA doesnt work for me but I m worried

>because it seems nothing does. What I dont buy about RR is: nutrition

doesnt

>matter, it doesnt matter what your socio-economic class is (most addicted

>people are low income level).

Oddly I think AA says the same thing. When I was new in AA I heard

how it ( " alcoholism " ) affected all races, men and women, etc. - that

it was, if I remember right, an " equal opportunity destroyer " . I since

learned from elsewhere such as the book " under the influence " that

alcohol use and abuse varies widely between different races and

cultures.

>Im confused, and I hope this question doesnt offend anyone but Im wondering

>if it is true that some of us are more late stage than others.

It doesn't offend, but the words " late stage " strike me as the usual

AA/recovery-speak of labeling and classsifying people. How much time have

you spent in treatment centers or AA meetings? They all assume you're

going to drink again, and so it too often becomes a self-fulfilling

prophecy. It may help you to unlearn many of the things you've learned

from these places.

>Have any of the people on here had their lives turned upside down from

>alcohol? If so how did you stay sober?

I drank my way through my 20's, and certainly drank enough to be

labeled alcoholic by anyone who uses that label. I got sober in AA

at age 30, but after two years I wanted to do something more than go to

meetings every day and take the steps the rest of my life, and when I

tried to do anything else it felt like I was in a straight jacket. I

discovered SOS and found it to be much more supportive, with fewer

" suggestions " , and almost no guilt trips. I'm not affiliated with SOS

anymore, but I do recommend it.

There's lots and lots of info on SOS/LSR at <http://www.unhooked.com>.

-----

This post (except quoted portions) Copyright 2001, Ben Bradley.

http://listen.to/benbradley

[Guest guest]

At 01:04 AM 2/7/01 EST, GrahJAG@... wrote:

>Hello,

>

> I read RR and was trying to implement it in my life.

>Well I ended up drinking. I know AA doesnt work for me but I m worried

>because it seems nothing does. What I dont buy about RR is: nutrition

doesnt

>matter, it doesnt matter what your socio-economic class is (most addicted

>people are low income level).

Oddly I think AA says the same thing. When I was new in AA I heard

how it ( " alcoholism " ) affected all races, men and women, etc. - that

it was, if I remember right, an " equal opportunity destroyer " . I since

learned from elsewhere such as the book " under the influence " that

alcohol use and abuse varies widely between different races and

cultures.

>Im confused, and I hope this question doesnt offend anyone but Im wondering

>if it is true that some of us are more late stage than others.

It doesn't offend, but the words " late stage " strike me as the usual

AA/recovery-speak of labeling and classsifying people. How much time have

you spent in treatment centers or AA meetings? They all assume you're

going to drink again, and so it too often becomes a self-fulfilling

prophecy. It may help you to unlearn many of the things you've learned

from these places.

>Have any of the people on here had their lives turned upside down from

>alcohol? If so how did you stay sober?

I drank my way through my 20's, and certainly drank enough to be

labeled alcoholic by anyone who uses that label. I got sober in AA

at age 30, but after two years I wanted to do something more than go to

meetings every day and take the steps the rest of my life, and when I

tried to do anything else it felt like I was in a straight jacket. I

discovered SOS and found it to be much more supportive, with fewer

" suggestions " , and almost no guilt trips. I'm not affiliated with SOS

anymore, but I do recommend it.

There's lots and lots of info on SOS/LSR at <http://www.unhooked.com>.

-----

This post (except quoted portions) Copyright 2001, Ben Bradley.

http://listen.to/benbradley

[Guest guest]

At 01:04 AM 2/7/01 EST, GrahJAG@... wrote:

>Hello,

>

> I read RR and was trying to implement it in my life.

>Well I ended up drinking. I know AA doesnt work for me but I m worried

>because it seems nothing does. What I dont buy about RR is: nutrition

doesnt

>matter, it doesnt matter what your socio-economic class is (most addicted

>people are low income level).

Oddly I think AA says the same thing. When I was new in AA I heard

how it ( " alcoholism " ) affected all races, men and women, etc. - that

it was, if I remember right, an " equal opportunity destroyer " . I since

learned from elsewhere such as the book " under the influence " that

alcohol use and abuse varies widely between different races and

cultures.

>Im confused, and I hope this question doesnt offend anyone but Im wondering

>if it is true that some of us are more late stage than others.

It doesn't offend, but the words " late stage " strike me as the usual

AA/recovery-speak of labeling and classsifying people. How much time have

you spent in treatment centers or AA meetings? They all assume you're

going to drink again, and so it too often becomes a self-fulfilling

prophecy. It may help you to unlearn many of the things you've learned

from these places.

>Have any of the people on here had their lives turned upside down from

>alcohol? If so how did you stay sober?

I drank my way through my 20's, and certainly drank enough to be

labeled alcoholic by anyone who uses that label. I got sober in AA

at age 30, but after two years I wanted to do something more than go to

meetings every day and take the steps the rest of my life, and when I

tried to do anything else it felt like I was in a straight jacket. I

discovered SOS and found it to be much more supportive, with fewer

" suggestions " , and almost no guilt trips. I'm not affiliated with SOS

anymore, but I do recommend it.

There's lots and lots of info on SOS/LSR at <http://www.unhooked.com>.

-----

This post (except quoted portions) Copyright 2001, Ben Bradley.

http://listen.to/benbradley

[Guest guest]

> Hello,

i found when i quit that vitamin b did help me. apparently when

you drink, the alcohol damages the

the nervous system, the vitamin is supposed to help with that.

> Why would I drink again? Its like I cant stop myself once I feel

that > intense urge to drink.

the alcohol is effecting you physically and mentally. have you

manged soberiety for any length of time in past?

Im confuseed though because I dont buy the whole AA

> concept that im just selfish and self-centered.

you shouldn't, its a harmful concept.

> Have any of the people on here had their lives turned upside

down from > alcohol? If so how did you stay sober? All

suggestion are welcome.

i was a mess . i quit at 27. i was unemployed and a mess. i hit

what was a " rock bottom " for myself. you dont need to hit bottom

to quit, but i did. once i stopped, i dedicated myself to improving

all the areas of my life the drinking was harming, starting with my

physical condition and personal hygiene. this helped improve my

self esteem. and when you start taking care of yourself, you

believe your worth caring for. once i made that my focus, using

again never became an option, simply put, alcohol was no

longer attractive, actually it was repulsive to me because i didnt

want to intoxicate my brain or put toxins in my body.

i also wanted to restore the relationships i had damaged, and

that was a strong motivator for me to go forward, the hope that if i

got better, so would my relationships. they did. within a few

weeks i felt so much better it was amazing. my depression lifted

off my mind like a fog and i felt good about myself. the pain went

away too.

i personally think the most important factor is motivation, wanting

something better for yourself, and taking care of yourself, doing

what is best for your well being. you can achieve that if you stop

drinking.

but i know how hard those urges are to fight. i wish i had some

good advise for that, other than the vitamin b, (b12 i think) .

i know words cannot describe what it is like. i think everyone can

get thru that somehow.

when i quit, my depression was actually worse than my craving

that week, i stayed in my room recovering from a hangover for 3

days. i just gritted my teeth and stayed in bed. i was too

depressed to look out the window and kept my room dark and

curtains closed.

thats not something that i can say is a strategy for quitting, but its

the state i was in when i quit.

isn't there a drug, anabuse or something newer which help with

cravings? can you see a doctor?

i hope i helped.

[Guest guest]

> Hello,

i found when i quit that vitamin b did help me. apparently when

you drink, the alcohol damages the

the nervous system, the vitamin is supposed to help with that.

> Why would I drink again? Its like I cant stop myself once I feel

that > intense urge to drink.

the alcohol is effecting you physically and mentally. have you

manged soberiety for any length of time in past?

Im confuseed though because I dont buy the whole AA

> concept that im just selfish and self-centered.

you shouldn't, its a harmful concept.

> Have any of the people on here had their lives turned upside

down from > alcohol? If so how did you stay sober? All

suggestion are welcome.

i was a mess . i quit at 27. i was unemployed and a mess. i hit

what was a " rock bottom " for myself. you dont need to hit bottom

to quit, but i did. once i stopped, i dedicated myself to improving

all the areas of my life the drinking was harming, starting with my

physical condition and personal hygiene. this helped improve my

self esteem. and when you start taking care of yourself, you

believe your worth caring for. once i made that my focus, using

again never became an option, simply put, alcohol was no

longer attractive, actually it was repulsive to me because i didnt

want to intoxicate my brain or put toxins in my body.

i also wanted to restore the relationships i had damaged, and

that was a strong motivator for me to go forward, the hope that if i

got better, so would my relationships. they did. within a few

weeks i felt so much better it was amazing. my depression lifted

off my mind like a fog and i felt good about myself. the pain went

away too.

i personally think the most important factor is motivation, wanting

something better for yourself, and taking care of yourself, doing

what is best for your well being. you can achieve that if you stop

drinking.

but i know how hard those urges are to fight. i wish i had some

good advise for that, other than the vitamin b, (b12 i think) .

i know words cannot describe what it is like. i think everyone can

get thru that somehow.

when i quit, my depression was actually worse than my craving

that week, i stayed in my room recovering from a hangover for 3

days. i just gritted my teeth and stayed in bed. i was too

depressed to look out the window and kept my room dark and

curtains closed.

thats not something that i can say is a strategy for quitting, but its

the state i was in when i quit.

isn't there a drug, anabuse or something newer which help with

cravings? can you see a doctor?

i hope i helped.

[Guest guest]

> Hello,

i found when i quit that vitamin b did help me. apparently when

you drink, the alcohol damages the

the nervous system, the vitamin is supposed to help with that.

> Why would I drink again? Its like I cant stop myself once I feel

that > intense urge to drink.

the alcohol is effecting you physically and mentally. have you

manged soberiety for any length of time in past?

Im confuseed though because I dont buy the whole AA

> concept that im just selfish and self-centered.

you shouldn't, its a harmful concept.

> Have any of the people on here had their lives turned upside

down from > alcohol? If so how did you stay sober? All

suggestion are welcome.

i was a mess . i quit at 27. i was unemployed and a mess. i hit

what was a " rock bottom " for myself. you dont need to hit bottom

to quit, but i did. once i stopped, i dedicated myself to improving

all the areas of my life the drinking was harming, starting with my

physical condition and personal hygiene. this helped improve my

self esteem. and when you start taking care of yourself, you

believe your worth caring for. once i made that my focus, using

again never became an option, simply put, alcohol was no

longer attractive, actually it was repulsive to me because i didnt

want to intoxicate my brain or put toxins in my body.

i also wanted to restore the relationships i had damaged, and

that was a strong motivator for me to go forward, the hope that if i

got better, so would my relationships. they did. within a few

weeks i felt so much better it was amazing. my depression lifted

off my mind like a fog and i felt good about myself. the pain went

away too.

i personally think the most important factor is motivation, wanting

something better for yourself, and taking care of yourself, doing

what is best for your well being. you can achieve that if you stop

drinking.

but i know how hard those urges are to fight. i wish i had some

good advise for that, other than the vitamin b, (b12 i think) .

i know words cannot describe what it is like. i think everyone can

get thru that somehow.

when i quit, my depression was actually worse than my craving

that week, i stayed in my room recovering from a hangover for 3

days. i just gritted my teeth and stayed in bed. i was too

depressed to look out the window and kept my room dark and

curtains closed.

thats not something that i can say is a strategy for quitting, but its

the state i was in when i quit.

isn't there a drug, anabuse or something newer which help with

cravings? can you see a doctor?

i hope i helped.

[Guest guest]

What I dont buy about RR is: nutrition

>doesnt

>>matter, it doesnt matter what your socio-economic class is (most addicted

>>people are low income level).

>

> Oddly I think AA says the same thing. When I was new in AA I heard

>how it ( " alcoholism " ) affected all races, men and women, etc. - that

>it was, if I remember right, an " equal opportunity destroyer " . I since

>learned from elsewhere such as the book " under the influence " that

>alcohol use and abuse varies widely between different races and

>cultures.

Which reinforces my claims that socioeconomic status figures heavily into

it. People whose lives are going well are less likely to try to destroy

themselves with alcohol than are those whose lives are miserable and show

no hope. You will find that most fundamentalist Christians are of lower

socioeconomic status (not all, but many, probably most). If one's life is

hell, and shows no possibility of improvement, there's a limited number of

options. Many people will reach for some sort of opiate. For some, that's

religion. For others, that's alcohol or drugs.

I still believe that such people need some sort of self-help or support

groups. Support groups have proven to be very useful for a great variety of

problems. That doesn't mean a lifetime commitment to a support group--but

they are very useful as a bridge to learning how to live without drugs or

alcohol, or to coping with life's problems. Group therapy is another

option, but one that few people have access to. The beauty of AA meetings

is that they're free (even the donation asked for is only $1). I believe

that there is a real need for support groups for some alcoholics, and

programs seeking to help all alcoholics (not just those wealthy enough to

pay for counseling themselves, or t hose who have insurance to pay for it)

would do well to offer some kind of support group meetings.

I got sober in AA

>at age 30, but after two years I wanted to do something more than go to

>meetings every day and take the steps the rest of my life, and when I

>tried to do anything else it felt like I was in a straight jacket.

Ben,

Could you explain what you mean by it felt like you were in a straight

jacket? I would think that after 2 years of sobriety, you wouldn't need

constant meetings, certainly not every day. Most alcoholics I know who

*have* benefitted from AA stop going after a while, or they attend only

rarely, like 2 or 3 times a year (of course we all know the people who've

been going to AA regularly for 15 years.) Can you say why you felt you had

to go every day, and why you felt you were in a straight jacket if you

tried anything else?

Dixie

[Guest guest]

What I dont buy about RR is: nutrition

>doesnt

>>matter, it doesnt matter what your socio-economic class is (most addicted

>>people are low income level).

>

> Oddly I think AA says the same thing. When I was new in AA I heard

>how it ( " alcoholism " ) affected all races, men and women, etc. - that

>it was, if I remember right, an " equal opportunity destroyer " . I since

>learned from elsewhere such as the book " under the influence " that

>alcohol use and abuse varies widely between different races and

>cultures.

Which reinforces my claims that socioeconomic status figures heavily into

it. People whose lives are going well are less likely to try to destroy

themselves with alcohol than are those whose lives are miserable and show

no hope. You will find that most fundamentalist Christians are of lower

socioeconomic status (not all, but many, probably most). If one's life is

hell, and shows no possibility of improvement, there's a limited number of

options. Many people will reach for some sort of opiate. For some, that's

religion. For others, that's alcohol or drugs.

I still believe that such people need some sort of self-help or support

groups. Support groups have proven to be very useful for a great variety of

problems. That doesn't mean a lifetime commitment to a support group--but

they are very useful as a bridge to learning how to live without drugs or

alcohol, or to coping with life's problems. Group therapy is another

option, but one that few people have access to. The beauty of AA meetings

is that they're free (even the donation asked for is only $1). I believe

that there is a real need for support groups for some alcoholics, and

programs seeking to help all alcoholics (not just those wealthy enough to

pay for counseling themselves, or t hose who have insurance to pay for it)

would do well to offer some kind of support group meetings.

I got sober in AA

>at age 30, but after two years I wanted to do something more than go to

>meetings every day and take the steps the rest of my life, and when I

>tried to do anything else it felt like I was in a straight jacket.

Ben,

Could you explain what you mean by it felt like you were in a straight

jacket? I would think that after 2 years of sobriety, you wouldn't need

constant meetings, certainly not every day. Most alcoholics I know who

*have* benefitted from AA stop going after a while, or they attend only

rarely, like 2 or 3 times a year (of course we all know the people who've

been going to AA regularly for 15 years.) Can you say why you felt you had

to go every day, and why you felt you were in a straight jacket if you

tried anything else?

Dixie

[Guest guest]

What I dont buy about RR is: nutrition

>doesnt

>>matter, it doesnt matter what your socio-economic class is (most addicted

>>people are low income level).

>

> Oddly I think AA says the same thing. When I was new in AA I heard

>how it ( " alcoholism " ) affected all races, men and women, etc. - that

>it was, if I remember right, an " equal opportunity destroyer " . I since

>learned from elsewhere such as the book " under the influence " that

>alcohol use and abuse varies widely between different races and

>cultures.

Which reinforces my claims that socioeconomic status figures heavily into

it. People whose lives are going well are less likely to try to destroy

themselves with alcohol than are those whose lives are miserable and show

no hope. You will find that most fundamentalist Christians are of lower

socioeconomic status (not all, but many, probably most). If one's life is

hell, and shows no possibility of improvement, there's a limited number of

options. Many people will reach for some sort of opiate. For some, that's

religion. For others, that's alcohol or drugs.

I still believe that such people need some sort of self-help or support

groups. Support groups have proven to be very useful for a great variety of

problems. That doesn't mean a lifetime commitment to a support group--but

they are very useful as a bridge to learning how to live without drugs or

alcohol, or to coping with life's problems. Group therapy is another

option, but one that few people have access to. The beauty of AA meetings

is that they're free (even the donation asked for is only $1). I believe

that there is a real need for support groups for some alcoholics, and

programs seeking to help all alcoholics (not just those wealthy enough to

pay for counseling themselves, or t hose who have insurance to pay for it)

would do well to offer some kind of support group meetings.

I got sober in AA

>at age 30, but after two years I wanted to do something more than go to

>meetings every day and take the steps the rest of my life, and when I

>tried to do anything else it felt like I was in a straight jacket.

Ben,

Could you explain what you mean by it felt like you were in a straight

jacket? I would think that after 2 years of sobriety, you wouldn't need

constant meetings, certainly not every day. Most alcoholics I know who

*have* benefitted from AA stop going after a while, or they attend only

rarely, like 2 or 3 times a year (of course we all know the people who've

been going to AA regularly for 15 years.) Can you say why you felt you had

to go every day, and why you felt you were in a straight jacket if you

tried anything else?

Dixie

[Guest guest]

>

> I read RR and was trying to implement it in my life.

> Well I ended up drinking. I know AA doesnt work for me but I m worried

> because it seems nothing does. What I dont buy about RR is: nutrition doesnt

> matter,

>

------------

I agree, it's another of my criticisms of Trimpey -- he has no interest in

health or nutrition issues and in fact scorns approaches that are. One book I

found quite interesting and helpful was " How to Stop Drinking Without AA " by

Jerry Dorsman. It begins with a list of health and emotional questionnaires

designed to get you to be more self-aware of your emotional and bodily reactions

not only to alcohol (and in different amounts and settings), but reactions to

sugar, various foods, etc. Dorsman is a big believer in viewing severely

cutting down or quitting drinking as part of a larger continuum of improving

health by eating better, exercising, and generally taking better care of your

body. And he encourages you to continually note your physical and emotional

reactions to various diet and other changes as you make them. Therefore there

is no one-size-fits-all, everyone's body reacts differently.

>

> Why would I drink again? Its like I cant stop myself once I feel that

> intense urge to drink. Im confuseed though because I dont buy the whole AA

> concept that im just selfish and self-centered. I know better than to drink

> but why cant I stop? I blackout ive lost my license for 4 years, I almost

> got kicked out of my apt for turning the music so loud I want to quit but I

> cant seem to.

----------------

Please consider finding a doctor who is knowledgeable about Revia

(naltrexone). It is a medication taken for a short period of time (six months

maybe) which has had good results in combatting cravings among people who have

the reaction to alcohol that you describe. It's not a magic pill and doesn't

work all by itself, but research shows it can be really physically helpful in

situations such as yours, especially when combined with non-judgmental

counseling.

The doctor who has pioneered the use of naltrexone for overcoming alcohol

dependency is ph Volpicelli, M.D. of the University of Pennsylvania. If you

like, I get find out his e-mail address, maybe he can recommend a physician in

your area who is familiar with this.

~Rita

[Guest guest]

>

> I read RR and was trying to implement it in my life.

> Well I ended up drinking. I know AA doesnt work for me but I m worried

> because it seems nothing does. What I dont buy about RR is: nutrition doesnt

> matter,

>

------------

I agree, it's another of my criticisms of Trimpey -- he has no interest in

health or nutrition issues and in fact scorns approaches that are. One book I

found quite interesting and helpful was " How to Stop Drinking Without AA " by

Jerry Dorsman. It begins with a list of health and emotional questionnaires

designed to get you to be more self-aware of your emotional and bodily reactions

not only to alcohol (and in different amounts and settings), but reactions to

sugar, various foods, etc. Dorsman is a big believer in viewing severely

cutting down or quitting drinking as part of a larger continuum of improving

health by eating better, exercising, and generally taking better care of your

body. And he encourages you to continually note your physical and emotional

reactions to various diet and other changes as you make them. Therefore there

is no one-size-fits-all, everyone's body reacts differently.

>

> Why would I drink again? Its like I cant stop myself once I feel that

> intense urge to drink. Im confuseed though because I dont buy the whole AA

> concept that im just selfish and self-centered. I know better than to drink

> but why cant I stop? I blackout ive lost my license for 4 years, I almost

> got kicked out of my apt for turning the music so loud I want to quit but I

> cant seem to.

----------------

Please consider finding a doctor who is knowledgeable about Revia

(naltrexone). It is a medication taken for a short period of time (six months

maybe) which has had good results in combatting cravings among people who have

the reaction to alcohol that you describe. It's not a magic pill and doesn't

work all by itself, but research shows it can be really physically helpful in

situations such as yours, especially when combined with non-judgmental

counseling.

The doctor who has pioneered the use of naltrexone for overcoming alcohol

dependency is ph Volpicelli, M.D. of the University of Pennsylvania. If you

like, I get find out his e-mail address, maybe he can recommend a physician in

your area who is familiar with this.

~Rita

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/6/01 9:10:01 PM Pacific Standard Time, dixie@...

writes:

<< I believe there is plenty of evidence to show that people have always been

addicted. One need only read literature from the 19th, 18th, and 17th

centuries. Since we have no empirical data from those years, our evidence

has to come from jail records, literature, and historical accounts. Bonney

Prince Charlie may well have lost the battle at Culloden due to

alcoholism--it is certain that the drinking and partying he did the night

before did not help his forces at all. (That they had only broadswords >>

I would have to go with Dixie on this one. Piper.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/6/01 9:10:01 PM Pacific Standard Time, dixie@...

writes:

<< I believe there is plenty of evidence to show that people have always been

addicted. One need only read literature from the 19th, 18th, and 17th

centuries. Since we have no empirical data from those years, our evidence

has to come from jail records, literature, and historical accounts. Bonney

Prince Charlie may well have lost the battle at Culloden due to

alcoholism--it is certain that the drinking and partying he did the night

before did not help his forces at all. (That they had only broadswords >>

I would have to go with Dixie on this one. Piper.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/6/01 9:10:01 PM Pacific Standard Time, dixie@...

writes:

<< I believe there is plenty of evidence to show that people have always been

addicted. One need only read literature from the 19th, 18th, and 17th

centuries. Since we have no empirical data from those years, our evidence

has to come from jail records, literature, and historical accounts. Bonney

Prince Charlie may well have lost the battle at Culloden due to

alcoholism--it is certain that the drinking and partying he did the night

before did not help his forces at all. (That they had only broadswords >>

I would have to go with Dixie on this one. Piper.