Addoction Is a Choice

[Guest guest]

SMART is doing well here in northern Vermont. We have 2 weekly meetings, one in Burlington and one in St. Albians. About ten people attend each meeting. We have about 5 members who have been facilitating these meetings and we have been around for about 4 years. And oh....our meetings are not held in prisons. So there.

Neil

[Guest guest]

SMART is doing well here in northern Vermont. We have 2 weekly meetings, one in Burlington and one in St. Albians. About ten people attend each meeting. We have about 5 members who have been facilitating these meetings and we have been around for about 4 years. And oh....our meetings are not held in prisons. So there.

Neil

[Guest guest]

kayleighs@... wrote:

> How many alternatives were available when Audrey founded MM? Audrey

> may have known Peele and Schaler, but have they ever recommended any

> alternatives? I think she was like most of us, flying blind.

Kayleigh,

And even worse for her, put in the position of leading instead of being

able to focus on herself.

Ken Ragge

[Guest guest]

kayleighs@... wrote:

> How many alternatives were available when Audrey founded MM? Audrey

> may have known Peele and Schaler, but have they ever recommended any

> alternatives? I think she was like most of us, flying blind.

Kayleigh,

And even worse for her, put in the position of leading instead of being

able to focus on herself.

Ken Ragge

[Guest guest]

kayleighs@... wrote:

> How many alternatives were available when Audrey founded MM? Audrey

> may have known Peele and Schaler, but have they ever recommended any

> alternatives? I think she was like most of us, flying blind.

Kayleigh,

And even worse for her, put in the position of leading instead of being

able to focus on herself.

Ken Ragge

[Guest guest]

> In a message dated 5/8/01 3:17:59 AM US Eastern Standard Time,

> ahicks@s... writes:

>

>

> > . Maybe

> > abstinence was HER only option (although it didn't seem to do her

much

> > good - AA style), but " one's only option " seems to include all of

us

> > in it. I don't consider it my only option.

> >

>

> I didn't mean that to sound universal, altho my strong inclination

is that

> for the vast majority of people, most certainly those who have

become

> physically dependent, that is the only sensible course to pursue.

If I

> resumed drinking and attempted " moderation, " I'd be constantly

preoccupied

> with how much, when I can have it again, and it would loom a large

thought

> that is, in my view, indicative of the fact that I shouldn't be

drinking at

> all. Anyone who must expend that much energy and thought is at

serious risk

> of losing all control when their energy must be diverted to a major

life

> crisis.

>

> --Mona--

Hi Mona,

I think that moderation vs. abstinence is going to vary person to

person and even vary according to the time of life of the same

individual. There have been various studies done on it and the

results are unclear and contradictory. In " Recovery Options, " ph

Volpicelli writes:

" Basically, the research finds that people with alcohol problems on

the less severe end of the spectrum do as well with moderate-drinking

attempts as they do with trying to abstain. One study by Martha

-Craig randomly assigned such drinkers to either an

abstinence-focused program or a controlled-drinking one. After two

years follow-up, both groups were dong equally well. Several other

researchers replicated these results.

One interesting finding that shows up in many studies is that

women are more likely than men to succeed at drinking moderately.

This may be due to the fact that cultural notions of masculinity are

often tied up with 'drinking like a man' and that moderation may be

seen as wimpish. For women, excess is more often viewed at taboo--and

a drunk woman is seen as immoral. Moderation fits society's female

role better than it does the male role, basically.

has also done numerous studies of moderate

drinking, and his research finds that over time, many drinkers who

initially choose moderation, decide to abstain. In fact, the research

shows that over time, more drinkers who start with a moderation goal

wind up abstinent than continue moderation. "

One thing to remember is that most of the studies are using

respondents that have somehow come in contact with the treatment

industry. There are huge numbers of people out there that moderate or

abstain on their own without going into a " program. "

In the book " Coming Clean, " by Granfield and

Cloud, the authors study the issue of recovery without treatment,

including AA and secular recovery groups. " Prevalence. A significant

number of people with alcohol- and drug-related problems have

recovered independently of treatment or self-help.37 In their report

on addiction treatment, researchers at the Harvard Medical School

presented findings from a study indicating that 80 percent of all

alcohol-dependent people who recover for a year or more do so on their

own, some after being unsuccessfully treated.38 "

The results were comparable in the groups of illicit drug users.

I personally think that the idea that is heavily promulgated in almost

all of the recovery programs--that abstinence is the *only* or heavily

preferred goal--keeps people who could benefit *out* of recovery. In

addition, someone who successfully moderates is still seen as being

" in denial " and that basically it is inevitable that he or she will go

back to heavy and/or " out of control " drinking. This unfairly

stigmatizes successful moderators and can act as a self-fulfilling

prophesy.

At one time I strongly believed that if I ever had one sip of beer

that I'd end up on the street within a year. It was taught to me as a

fact and an inevitable part of the disease process, the disease I had

of alcholism. In other words, I was filled with *fear* and this is

what my " sobriety " was based on. Then, one day I decided to test it.

This was after 3 years of complete abstinence from everything, even

that demerol shot that would have really helped my migraines. The sky

did not fall and I did not return to my previous drinking patterns.

Further, I think that if I ever saw it heading that way that I now

have some tools and maturity to deal with it that I didn't have

before.

Also, I do not in the least feel preoccupied with how much, when,

where...etc. The fear around these issues is just gone. I now seem

to have an inner control that I couldn't drink past if I wanted to. I

think in my case a lot of this has to do with having my kids. I mean,

I am always " ON " and can't impair myself to the point of not being

able to take care of them. If this was a " disease " (which I am not

trying to imply that you believe), or if I had no control (which you

may be saying in your own case), then I couldn't do this. But I do.

So that tells me that I do have control and don't have a disease.

However, I clearly remember a time when I did feel out of control. If

I came home and had two beers after work, sometimes that would be it.

But sometimes an extra something would kick in and I'd just go for it

and get completely plastered, sometimes with other drugs thrown in.

I have to finish up, but a main point I want to make is that this is

an incredibly complex issue and set of dynamics and *one size does not

fit all.*

[Guest guest]

> In a message dated 5/8/01 3:17:59 AM US Eastern Standard Time,

> ahicks@s... writes:

>

>

> > . Maybe

> > abstinence was HER only option (although it didn't seem to do her

much

> > good - AA style), but " one's only option " seems to include all of

us

> > in it. I don't consider it my only option.

> >

>

> I didn't mean that to sound universal, altho my strong inclination

is that

> for the vast majority of people, most certainly those who have

become

> physically dependent, that is the only sensible course to pursue.

If I

> resumed drinking and attempted " moderation, " I'd be constantly

preoccupied

> with how much, when I can have it again, and it would loom a large

thought

> that is, in my view, indicative of the fact that I shouldn't be

drinking at

> all. Anyone who must expend that much energy and thought is at

serious risk

> of losing all control when their energy must be diverted to a major

life

> crisis.

>

> --Mona--

Hi Mona,

I think that moderation vs. abstinence is going to vary person to

person and even vary according to the time of life of the same

individual. There have been various studies done on it and the

results are unclear and contradictory. In " Recovery Options, " ph

Volpicelli writes:

" Basically, the research finds that people with alcohol problems on

the less severe end of the spectrum do as well with moderate-drinking

attempts as they do with trying to abstain. One study by Martha

-Craig randomly assigned such drinkers to either an

abstinence-focused program or a controlled-drinking one. After two

years follow-up, both groups were dong equally well. Several other

researchers replicated these results.

One interesting finding that shows up in many studies is that

women are more likely than men to succeed at drinking moderately.

This may be due to the fact that cultural notions of masculinity are

often tied up with 'drinking like a man' and that moderation may be

seen as wimpish. For women, excess is more often viewed at taboo--and

a drunk woman is seen as immoral. Moderation fits society's female

role better than it does the male role, basically.

has also done numerous studies of moderate

drinking, and his research finds that over time, many drinkers who

initially choose moderation, decide to abstain. In fact, the research

shows that over time, more drinkers who start with a moderation goal

wind up abstinent than continue moderation. "

One thing to remember is that most of the studies are using

respondents that have somehow come in contact with the treatment

industry. There are huge numbers of people out there that moderate or

abstain on their own without going into a " program. "

In the book " Coming Clean, " by Granfield and

Cloud, the authors study the issue of recovery without treatment,

including AA and secular recovery groups. " Prevalence. A significant

number of people with alcohol- and drug-related problems have

recovered independently of treatment or self-help.37 In their report

on addiction treatment, researchers at the Harvard Medical School

presented findings from a study indicating that 80 percent of all

alcohol-dependent people who recover for a year or more do so on their

own, some after being unsuccessfully treated.38 "

The results were comparable in the groups of illicit drug users.

I personally think that the idea that is heavily promulgated in almost

all of the recovery programs--that abstinence is the *only* or heavily

preferred goal--keeps people who could benefit *out* of recovery. In

addition, someone who successfully moderates is still seen as being

" in denial " and that basically it is inevitable that he or she will go

back to heavy and/or " out of control " drinking. This unfairly

stigmatizes successful moderators and can act as a self-fulfilling

prophesy.

At one time I strongly believed that if I ever had one sip of beer

that I'd end up on the street within a year. It was taught to me as a

fact and an inevitable part of the disease process, the disease I had

of alcholism. In other words, I was filled with *fear* and this is

what my " sobriety " was based on. Then, one day I decided to test it.

This was after 3 years of complete abstinence from everything, even

that demerol shot that would have really helped my migraines. The sky

did not fall and I did not return to my previous drinking patterns.

Further, I think that if I ever saw it heading that way that I now

have some tools and maturity to deal with it that I didn't have

before.

Also, I do not in the least feel preoccupied with how much, when,

where...etc. The fear around these issues is just gone. I now seem

to have an inner control that I couldn't drink past if I wanted to. I

think in my case a lot of this has to do with having my kids. I mean,

I am always " ON " and can't impair myself to the point of not being

able to take care of them. If this was a " disease " (which I am not

trying to imply that you believe), or if I had no control (which you

may be saying in your own case), then I couldn't do this. But I do.

So that tells me that I do have control and don't have a disease.

However, I clearly remember a time when I did feel out of control. If

I came home and had two beers after work, sometimes that would be it.

But sometimes an extra something would kick in and I'd just go for it

and get completely plastered, sometimes with other drugs thrown in.

I have to finish up, but a main point I want to make is that this is

an incredibly complex issue and set of dynamics and *one size does not

fit all.*

[Guest guest]

> In a message dated 5/8/01 3:17:59 AM US Eastern Standard Time,

> ahicks@s... writes:

>

>

> > . Maybe

> > abstinence was HER only option (although it didn't seem to do her

much

> > good - AA style), but " one's only option " seems to include all of

us

> > in it. I don't consider it my only option.

> >

>

> I didn't mean that to sound universal, altho my strong inclination

is that

> for the vast majority of people, most certainly those who have

become

> physically dependent, that is the only sensible course to pursue.

If I

> resumed drinking and attempted " moderation, " I'd be constantly

preoccupied

> with how much, when I can have it again, and it would loom a large

thought

> that is, in my view, indicative of the fact that I shouldn't be

drinking at

> all. Anyone who must expend that much energy and thought is at

serious risk

> of losing all control when their energy must be diverted to a major

life

> crisis.

>

> --Mona--

Hi Mona,

I think that moderation vs. abstinence is going to vary person to

person and even vary according to the time of life of the same

individual. There have been various studies done on it and the

results are unclear and contradictory. In " Recovery Options, " ph

Volpicelli writes:

" Basically, the research finds that people with alcohol problems on

the less severe end of the spectrum do as well with moderate-drinking

attempts as they do with trying to abstain. One study by Martha

-Craig randomly assigned such drinkers to either an

abstinence-focused program or a controlled-drinking one. After two

years follow-up, both groups were dong equally well. Several other

researchers replicated these results.

One interesting finding that shows up in many studies is that

women are more likely than men to succeed at drinking moderately.

This may be due to the fact that cultural notions of masculinity are

often tied up with 'drinking like a man' and that moderation may be

seen as wimpish. For women, excess is more often viewed at taboo--and

a drunk woman is seen as immoral. Moderation fits society's female

role better than it does the male role, basically.

has also done numerous studies of moderate

drinking, and his research finds that over time, many drinkers who

initially choose moderation, decide to abstain. In fact, the research

shows that over time, more drinkers who start with a moderation goal

wind up abstinent than continue moderation. "

One thing to remember is that most of the studies are using

respondents that have somehow come in contact with the treatment

industry. There are huge numbers of people out there that moderate or

abstain on their own without going into a " program. "

In the book " Coming Clean, " by Granfield and

Cloud, the authors study the issue of recovery without treatment,

including AA and secular recovery groups. " Prevalence. A significant

number of people with alcohol- and drug-related problems have

recovered independently of treatment or self-help.37 In their report

on addiction treatment, researchers at the Harvard Medical School

presented findings from a study indicating that 80 percent of all

alcohol-dependent people who recover for a year or more do so on their

own, some after being unsuccessfully treated.38 "

The results were comparable in the groups of illicit drug users.

I personally think that the idea that is heavily promulgated in almost

all of the recovery programs--that abstinence is the *only* or heavily

preferred goal--keeps people who could benefit *out* of recovery. In

addition, someone who successfully moderates is still seen as being

" in denial " and that basically it is inevitable that he or she will go

back to heavy and/or " out of control " drinking. This unfairly

stigmatizes successful moderators and can act as a self-fulfilling

prophesy.

At one time I strongly believed that if I ever had one sip of beer

that I'd end up on the street within a year. It was taught to me as a

fact and an inevitable part of the disease process, the disease I had

of alcholism. In other words, I was filled with *fear* and this is

what my " sobriety " was based on. Then, one day I decided to test it.

This was after 3 years of complete abstinence from everything, even

that demerol shot that would have really helped my migraines. The sky

did not fall and I did not return to my previous drinking patterns.

Further, I think that if I ever saw it heading that way that I now

have some tools and maturity to deal with it that I didn't have

before.

Also, I do not in the least feel preoccupied with how much, when,

where...etc. The fear around these issues is just gone. I now seem

to have an inner control that I couldn't drink past if I wanted to. I

think in my case a lot of this has to do with having my kids. I mean,

I am always " ON " and can't impair myself to the point of not being

able to take care of them. If this was a " disease " (which I am not

trying to imply that you believe), or if I had no control (which you

may be saying in your own case), then I couldn't do this. But I do.

So that tells me that I do have control and don't have a disease.

However, I clearly remember a time when I did feel out of control. If

I came home and had two beers after work, sometimes that would be it.

But sometimes an extra something would kick in and I'd just go for it

and get completely plastered, sometimes with other drugs thrown in.

I have to finish up, but a main point I want to make is that this is

an incredibly complex issue and set of dynamics and *one size does not

fit all.*

[Guest guest]

,

It sounds like you're completely over your alcohol problem, congrats.

However, just my opinion, I would guess you're in a distinct minority of

ex-AA 'ers with high self-confidence and competence (but *not* in an

egotistical way.) Of course, if one is drinking to get drunk, there are a

number of dangers involved (just from being intoxicated, if anything.)

I still hold that MM is ridiculous in its ideology, that combining meetings

(with other moderators or -even worse-those " seeking moderation as a goal " or

something along those lines,) but using scientific data which AA does not. I

don't think you meant that " abstinence across the board is disease-based " , a

claim made by (sorry) Schaler and some others, is ridiculous. Sure, some,

like SOS have adopted it, but look at people who find it to be personally

wrong on whatever grounds, do they view it as a disease? Ridiculous!

I abstain, and permanently committed to do so, because I don't know what

might happen. In all probability I might moderate, for long periods of time.

But despite the fact that I was never arrested, I did a lot of really

horrible things while addicted, to my family and o self, so I view it as a

personal, moral victory, though not something to obsess over as such, and

since I've always had a serious problem with very low self-esteem along with

serious dpression, the elimination of a chance of drinking/getting high again

is gone, so I don't even need to worry. I am convinced that neither of these

mental health problems led to the addiction, but naturally, the addiction

made them worse, certailnly chemically. So, those problems are also

practically gone between abstinence and the right med. regimen (although with

two prescriped controlled substance's, which I'm not crazy about but are

effective, I suppose groupers would see this as *pure* denial. I'd say, with

all the money I've been saving up from work (reply: workaholic) I think I'll

take a vacation to that Egypt, maybe see that river...

Nick

[Guest guest]

Neil,

I'm not trying to criticize you personally. It is true, however, about the

prison meetings, it's right on their webpage. And naturally, a lawsuit

recently was filed (at least one, I believe) again, citing the Establishment

Cause in for coerced attendance. But I don't know if there have been any

rulings, although I do believe they all cite a 1960s case which ruled Secular

Humanism to be religious.

Can you tell me if you find REBT to be helpful, or the group support? If you

don't want to answer or think it's too personal that's OK, I won't make any

nasty posts or anything. I'm just curious as there seem to be a lot of people

for whom REBT is ineffective, particularly in addiction, but of course others

report otherwise too.

[Guest guest]

Neil,

I'm not trying to criticize you personally. It is true, however, about the

prison meetings, it's right on their webpage. And naturally, a lawsuit

recently was filed (at least one, I believe) again, citing the Establishment

Cause in for coerced attendance. But I don't know if there have been any

rulings, although I do believe they all cite a 1960s case which ruled Secular

Humanism to be religious.

Can you tell me if you find REBT to be helpful, or the group support? If you

don't want to answer or think it's too personal that's OK, I won't make any

nasty posts or anything. I'm just curious as there seem to be a lot of people

for whom REBT is ineffective, particularly in addiction, but of course others

report otherwise too.

[Guest guest]

Sure, some, like SOS have adopted it, but look at people who find it to be personally wrong on whatever grounds, do they view it as a disease? Ridiculous!

I don't know that this is true. In LSR -- a daughter organization strongly aligned with SOS -- most of the fellow members reject the disease theory, or at least are, as I am, ambivalent and undecided on the issue. The founder,

Jim , does accept the disease model, but I have not seen any indication that his view is an official belief of SOS or LSR, and most in my online LSR group reject the notion.

The only nonnegotiable positions of LSR are: (1) that abstinence is the only proper goal for its members -- people are advised to look elsewhere if they seek tools for achieving moderation, (2) that secularity is the proper milieu for meetings -- no preaching or proselytizing about gods or Higher Powers, and (3) LSR rejects powerlessness, and advocates self-empowerment. But just about anything else is up to the individual member to determine as s/he sees fit. Indeed, some of our members do step work, and go to AA meetings as well -- not a majority, but some.

--Mona--

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

Sure, some, like SOS have adopted it, but look at people who find it to be personally wrong on whatever grounds, do they view it as a disease? Ridiculous!

I don't know that this is true. In LSR -- a daughter organization strongly aligned with SOS -- most of the fellow members reject the disease theory, or at least are, as I am, ambivalent and undecided on the issue. The founder,

Jim , does accept the disease model, but I have not seen any indication that his view is an official belief of SOS or LSR, and most in my online LSR group reject the notion.

The only nonnegotiable positions of LSR are: (1) that abstinence is the only proper goal for its members -- people are advised to look elsewhere if they seek tools for achieving moderation, (2) that secularity is the proper milieu for meetings -- no preaching or proselytizing about gods or Higher Powers, and (3) LSR rejects powerlessness, and advocates self-empowerment. But just about anything else is up to the individual member to determine as s/he sees fit. Indeed, some of our members do step work, and go to AA meetings as well -- not a majority, but some.

--Mona--

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

Thanks for clarifying that, it's why I frequently say I'm not positive when I

try to write a message with a bunch of info. I did know that

believed strongly in the biological disease concept but I assumed that, as

founder, his feelings would also serve as those of the group's.

[Guest guest]

Thanks for clarifying that, it's why I frequently say I'm not positive when I

try to write a message with a bunch of info. I did know that

believed strongly in the biological disease concept but I assumed that, as

founder, his feelings would also serve as those of the group's.