Responses to Clifton

[Guest guest]

>And, as I said in my letter to Matt, offended though

you may be by it, I'll bet you " got a life " (books?

music? career? hobbies? love life? some cause?) to

achieve those many years, didn't you?

Speaking for myself only, yeah, I got more involved in

all aspects of life after I stopped drinking. But the

cause and effect were the opposite - I got more involved

in life *because* I stopped drinking, not in order

to stop drinking.

But let's look at exactly what you said to Matt:

" I know of very few such people personally, but what

seems to be critical among them is that they found

something else (church, music, a new vocation/passion)

to replace both the drinking and the AA. "

What you're really saying here is that it's critical

to trade one crutch for another (which is not what I

personally did, nor is it what quite a few non-12-step

programs recommend). I did say that I thought

that idea was " bogus " .

Not *terribly* inflammatory...but, given the quite

uncivil tone of some recent posts directed at you (I

agree with you absolutely on that), I can see how

you might have taken offense. If that's the case,

no offense was intended. I'll repeat that I believe

the idea that it is *critical* that an ex-alcohol

abuser have something (people, hobbies, etc) to lean

on (for lack of a better phrase) is fallacious. Do

supports help? Certainly. As long as they're

healthy, " normal " people/hobbies/etc (an idea which is

implicit in your statement).

As for AA's idea that the best possible support system

is a group of people who are so unconfident in their

own abstinence that none are willing to say with any

certainty, " I won't drink tomorrow " ...well, at best

I find that highly questionable.

>As for the " allergy " part, I have friends who are

current (in 2001, not 1935) Duke researchers in

allergy/immunology (no, they're not alcoholics), who

state an allergy is simply ANY abnormal and unhealthy

response to a substance and, on a cellular level, is

very closely related to physical addiction.

Really? Please invite them to participate in this

list!!!! In particular, I would like answers to these

questions:

1) Many " alcoholics " can drink normally for months or

even years at a time, and then suddenly binge. Why

the intermittent nature of this " allergy " , when other

allergies seem to be more or less constant? (Someone

else made this point earlier - I forgot who, but I'll

gladly repeat it here).

2) Most allergic reactions are characterized by a

negative response to the stimulus (anything from

watery eyes, skin rash, etc., all the way up to

full-blown anaphylactic shock) which tends to

discourage the person from re-exposing themselves

to the stimulus. Are there other, more commonly

accepted allergens which tend to make a person

*want* to re-expose themselves to the stimulus?

If not, what are the grounds for grouping these

two dissimilar phenomena under the same theoretical

and diagnostic category?

3) As stated, ( " Any abnormal and unhealthy response

to a substance " ), this definition could include such

disparate conditions as " classical " allergies, cancer,

and the common cold. As such, it is so broad, vague and

all-encompassing as to be theoretically, diagnostically,

and methodologically useless. I would be very

interested in hearing a medical professional who

subscribes to this viewpoint answer that criticism.

4) Given the great advances in genetics, pharmacology,

immunology, and every other " ology " one cares to name,

why has nothing been done to address and treat the

biological mechanisms of the " allergy " of " alcoholism " ?

After all, when the pollen starts flying around in the

air, I can go to Wal-Mart, pick up some cheap, generic

over-the-counter diphenhydramine, and then walk around

outside all I want without sneezing. Why is there no

similar drug which will allow " alcoholics " to drink

normally? Why have no serious attempts been made to

develop such a drug, given the " allergic " nature of

" alcoholism " ?

5) Saying that allergies " are closely related to "

addictions is not the same as saying that addictions

*are* allergies. If they're closely related to

each other, what are the similarities? What are

the differences? What implications do these similarities

and differences have for pharmacological treatment

of each?

6) If alcohol dependence/abuse has an allergic

response as its biological base, why is the overwhelmingly

predominant treatment a religious program? Any physician

who seriously recommended " fearless moral inventories " ,

prayer, and " carrying the message " to someone who had

an allergy (even a severe one) to, let's say, penicillin,

would be laughed out of the AMA. Why does the allergic

response to alcohol merit a totally different

treatment?

Finally, a question not for the doctors, but for AA:

7) Given that the alcoholism-as-allergy theory is a)

far from universally accepted, really adds nothing

to AA's approach to addressing problem drinking, and

c) does nothing to assist the " alcoholic " in addressing

his/her problem, why does AA continue to promulgate

that theory?

>And for the record, I had never even HEARD of the 12

steps, much less knew their content, in those 11 years

of crazy drinking before that first AA meeting in

1987, so I certainly wasn't rebelling against them or

carrying out some self-fulfilling AA prophecy of

" powerlessness " before that meeting.

Neither had I - had I been aware of the profoundly

religious nature of AA, I might very well have never

set foot in a meeting to start with. But, like most

people, I had heard concepts like " alcoholism-as-

disease " , " an alcoholic can never be *cured*, they

can only stop drinking " , " an alcoholic can't quit

on their own " , etc. repeated by the media and

represented as established fact. Implicit in all

of these is the idea of powerlessness. How many

statements like those had you heard before you

joined AA? Did you, like so many people, accept

them as valid because they seemed to represent

mainstream medical thought on the issue?

>So far, most of what I've read are personal attacks,

witty but unhelpful jokes, random ramblings, anti-AA

vitriol (understandable though it may be), or how

successful long-term 12-step-free people " certainly

didn't do it " rather than how they DID.

If you're referring to my post (which was

admittedly mostly " how AA failed me " ), I have two

comments. First, Matt said he wanted to " hear all

about it " . To me, it seemed to be impossible to

tell *all* about what RR has done for me without

giving some background on how I got there in the

first place. Second, it did bother me that I

wrote mostly about AA and little about RR - but

(repeating myself, I know), in RR, we don't work

on staying sober (other than applying AVRT),

and there's very little " how I do it " involved.

It's almost all " how I *did* it " .

>Despite your sarcasm, there really is a 12-step

recovery group for people recovering from 12-step

recovery groups! (I'm just a reporter.) No, I'm not

kidding. It's called Anonymity Anonymous.

Oh, I believe you - I have absolutely no trouble

believing that our 12-step-happy society has come

up with such a thing. More's the pity.

>On this very listserve

(and very recently), I read a message claiming that AA

" must not work " because someone had booze on his/her

breath at a meeting. Wow, I guess it's a good thing

that " the only requirement for AA membership is a

DESIRE to stop drinking. "

If you're referring to someone else's message, then

I apologize in advance; but I made a similar comment,

and I haven't seen anyone else make such a statement.

And, I've gone to the Yahoo home site for this group

and looked through quite a few messages that were

posted before I joined, and haven't seen anything

like that there either. So, I'm pretty sure you're

talking about me.

You're right, assuming that AA doesn't work because

someone (i.e., one person) had booze on their breath

at a (single) meeting would be pretty stupid.

Problem is, I never said that. Here's what I did say:

" I started noticing the shocking number of people who were

apparently sober, yet smelled of beer or gin, having just

" had a couple " before the meeting. "

And later:

" [T]he norm in AA seemed to be either brief periods of

sobriety punctuated by frequent " relapses "

(for those of us who were really trying), or just going through

the motions and collecting slips (for those under court

sentence). "

It's pretty clear that I'm not talking about an isolated

incident involving one person; I'm talking about a

quite common - in fact, frequent - occurance. There's a

big difference.

If you want to criticize my ideas, fine, have at it.

I'm always open to a good discussion or debate. But

please do not invent something which I never said, which

is unsupportable, then claim victory and depart the field.

Remember your complaint about non sequitors?

>Blessed Be. --Clifton T.

May the Force be with you. -

_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com