Re: forced into AA

[Guest guest]

WOW

I really appreciate all the quick responses on this issue.

And a big hat's off to Tommy and Mona for the offered help and url's

to reference from.

I'll be going tomorrow to have the case motioned up in court to see

what can be done about this.

as some of you have suggested.

my biggest worry now is if they do offer an alternative, how does

someone with no license get there?

guess that'll be on my things to do list. LOL

Anyway it's really a sigh of relief to find others with similar

interests on this issue.

thanx for being here for people in my situation.

i'll let ya know what tomorrow brings.

Harley

> > In a message dated 5/7/01 4:12:21 PM US Eastern Standard Time,

> > harleygraffix@n... writes:

> >

> >

> > > just recently I learned from my probation officer that I was

court

> > > ordered to attend AA once a week.

> > >

> >

> > Have you put in a call to the Illinois Civil Liberties Union? If

> you like, I

> > would write a letter to them for you, citing case law from the

7th

> circuit

> > and other persuasive authority. I'm not admitted in Illinois,

but

> they might

> > be willing to sponsor my admission to handle just this matter if

> they are not

> > willing to take it on themselves.

> >

> > I'd need a copy of the Order, and a few other things we could

> discuss by

> > private email. I'd start with the ICLU first, as this is just

the

> sort of

> > case they are there for, and they carry a lot of clout.

> >

> > --Mona--

[Guest guest]

WOW

I really appreciate all the quick responses on this issue.

And a big hat's off to Tommy and Mona for the offered help and url's

to reference from.

I'll be going tomorrow to have the case motioned up in court to see

what can be done about this.

as some of you have suggested.

my biggest worry now is if they do offer an alternative, how does

someone with no license get there?

guess that'll be on my things to do list. LOL

Anyway it's really a sigh of relief to find others with similar

interests on this issue.

thanx for being here for people in my situation.

i'll let ya know what tomorrow brings.

Harley

> > In a message dated 5/7/01 4:12:21 PM US Eastern Standard Time,

> > harleygraffix@n... writes:

> >

> >

> > > just recently I learned from my probation officer that I was

court

> > > ordered to attend AA once a week.

> > >

> >

> > Have you put in a call to the Illinois Civil Liberties Union? If

> you like, I

> > would write a letter to them for you, citing case law from the

7th

> circuit

> > and other persuasive authority. I'm not admitted in Illinois,

but

> they might

> > be willing to sponsor my admission to handle just this matter if

> they are not

> > willing to take it on themselves.

> >

> > I'd need a copy of the Order, and a few other things we could

> discuss by

> > private email. I'd start with the ICLU first, as this is just

the

> sort of

> > case they are there for, and they carry a lot of clout.

> >

> > --Mona--

[Guest guest]

I said that it is hypocritical to agree to AA as a condition of probation,

if you are not willing to meet the conditions of probation. I think it is

hypocritical to make ANY kind of agreement with no intent of honoring the

agreement you make. I said they should have told the judge if they objected

to AA, and perhaps make some other kind of probations conditions agreement

with the court. To say Yes sir, I will go to the judge and then beef about

it later makes no sense to me.

Don't you understand that the vast majority of people do not realize what AA is all about? I had *NO* clue, until it was introduced to me in rehab. If I had ever been picked up for DUI, I would have agreed to go to AA meetings because I thought it was just a support group where drunks sat around discussing how to stay sober.

Imagine the surprise of someone believing that is what they are agreeing to, and subsequently finding themselves in a room full of people saying the Lord's Prayer and talking about the character defects their Higher Power is removing. And being given a big book full of neo-Calvinist theology about what filthy wretches we have been and how God is saving us from insanity and turning our lives around.

If the accused feels s/he has been unwittingly sentenced to religious services in lieu of jail, they are right.

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

Mike

I never knew anything about that condition and it's been allmost a

year since i was sentenced.

i've met all requirements which i was aware of including paid

fines,jail time,vip,aids class,and 75 hours of intensive outpatient.

now i'm doing 75 hours of aftercare.

it's really not a matter of what was agreed or not agreed, the fact

is and allways will be that AA is nothing but a religous cult in my

eyes and if I did agree to it (which i did not)and went into it blind

not knowing what it really was i would still have come to this

conclusion.

Myself not being a religous person should not be forced into such

without prior knowledge of what AA was really about.

Let's say I did agree to it and then was totally turned off by the

thaught of using a coffee cup(as quoted in a previous message)as my

higher power.

That's just screwed up.

sure there's alot of people who do gain from the meetings I'm not

knocking the people who gain from it, but that's not right to allow

someone to force this on anyone especially when from what i've read

they should have offered me an alternative.

I really thaught this list was here for giving and receiving advice

on the issue but it seems you're only here to put people down and

from what it seems (praise AA).

thanx for your input mike but with everyone else on this list who are

willing to lend a helping hand i really dont feel the need for your

assistance anymore mike.

thanx anyway.

Harley

In 12-step-free@y..., " Mike " <mikdan7@h...> wrote:

> I said that it is hypocritical to agree to AA as a condition of

probation,

> if you are not willing to meet the conditions of probation. I

think it is

> hypocritical to make ANY kind of agreement with no intent of

honoring the

> agreement you make. I said they should have told the judge if they

objected

> to AA, and perhaps make some other kind of probations conditions

agreement

> with the court. To say Yes sir, I will go to the judge and then

beef about

> it later makes no sense to me.

> Re: forced into AA

>

>

> >

> > Wrong attribution, Nick. It was Mona who offered to help and

> > steered the person to the Illinois CLU. The poster " mikdan "

> > criticised her and the original poster, claiming people

> > are " hypocrites " if they fight against coerced AA when

they " agreed "

> > to attend to stay out of prison.

> >

> > ~Rita

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> > > In a message dated 5/8/01 6:51:01 AM, mikdan7@h... writes:

> > >

> > > <<

> > >

> > > Have you put in a call to the Illinois Civil Liberties

Union? If

> > you like,

> > > I

> > >

> > > would write a letter to them for you, citing case law from the

> > 7th circuit

> > >

> > > and other persuasive authority. I'm not admitted in Illinois,

> > but they

> > > might

> > >

> > > be willing to sponsor my admission to handle just this matter

if

> > they are

> > > not

> > >

> > > willing to take it on themselves.

> > >

> > >

> > > I'd need a copy of the Order, and a few other things we could

> > discuss by

> > >

> > > private email. I'd start with the ICLU first, as this is just

> > the sort of

> > >

> > > case they are there for, and they carry a lot of clout.

> > >

> > >

> > > --Mona-- >>

> > >

> > > Loud applause! This is just the kind of assistance people need

to

> > take on the

> > > steppers in high places.

> > >

> > > Nick

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Your position was one that served to discredit AA when I sued over forced

AA. It was ruled that AA was the " immediate cause " of the violation of my

1st Amendment rights because they lied to me about AA not being religious-

telling me that it is " spiritual not religious " . This lie denied me the

ability to make a knowing decision as to whether I would attend AA as a

condition of probation. AA told me that they are not a religious

organization- it was proven they are " deeply religious " . You can't tell

someone you are giving them a glass of water and then criticize them for

refusing to drink it when they find out you've handed them a glass of

vinegar.

Re: forced into AA

>

>

> >

> > Wrong attribution, Nick. It was Mona who offered to help and

> > steered the person to the Illinois CLU. The poster " mikdan "

> > criticised her and the original poster, claiming people

> > are " hypocrites " if they fight against coerced AA when they " agreed "

> > to attend to stay out of prison.

> >

> > ~Rita

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> > > In a message dated 5/8/01 6:51:01 AM, mikdan7@h... writes:

> > >

> > > <<

> > >

> > > Have you put in a call to the Illinois Civil Liberties Union? If

> > you like,

> > > I

> > >

> > > would write a letter to them for you, citing case law from the

> > 7th circuit

> > >

> > > and other persuasive authority. I'm not admitted in Illinois,

> > but they

> > > might

> > >

> > > be willing to sponsor my admission to handle just this matter if

> > they are

> > > not

> > >

> > > willing to take it on themselves.

> > >

> > >

> > > I'd need a copy of the Order, and a few other things we could

> > discuss by

> > >

> > > private email. I'd start with the ICLU first, as this is just

> > the sort of

> > >

> > > case they are there for, and they carry a lot of clout.

> > >

> > >

> > > --Mona-- >>

> > >

> > > Loud applause! This is just the kind of assistance people need to

> > take on the

> > > steppers in high places.

> > >

> > > Nick

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Your position was one that served to discredit AA when I sued over forced

AA. It was ruled that AA was the " immediate cause " of the violation of my

1st Amendment rights because they lied to me about AA not being religious-

telling me that it is " spiritual not religious " . This lie denied me the

ability to make a knowing decision as to whether I would attend AA as a

condition of probation. AA told me that they are not a religious

organization- it was proven they are " deeply religious " . You can't tell

someone you are giving them a glass of water and then criticize them for

refusing to drink it when they find out you've handed them a glass of

vinegar.

Re: forced into AA

>

>

> >

> > Wrong attribution, Nick. It was Mona who offered to help and

> > steered the person to the Illinois CLU. The poster " mikdan "

> > criticised her and the original poster, claiming people

> > are " hypocrites " if they fight against coerced AA when they " agreed "

> > to attend to stay out of prison.

> >

> > ~Rita

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> > > In a message dated 5/8/01 6:51:01 AM, mikdan7@h... writes:

> > >

> > > <<

> > >

> > > Have you put in a call to the Illinois Civil Liberties Union? If

> > you like,

> > > I

> > >

> > > would write a letter to them for you, citing case law from the

> > 7th circuit

> > >

> > > and other persuasive authority. I'm not admitted in Illinois,

> > but they

> > > might

> > >

> > > be willing to sponsor my admission to handle just this matter if

> > they are

> > > not

> > >

> > > willing to take it on themselves.

> > >

> > >

> > > I'd need a copy of the Order, and a few other things we could

> > discuss by

> > >

> > > private email. I'd start with the ICLU first, as this is just

> > the sort of

> > >

> > > case they are there for, and they carry a lot of clout.

> > >

> > >

> > > --Mona-- >>

> > >

> > > Loud applause! This is just the kind of assistance people need to

> > take on the

> > > steppers in high places.

> > >

> > > Nick

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

MonaHolland@... wrote:

> In a message dated 5/8/01 5:51:06 AM US Eastern Standard Time,

> mikdan7@... writes:

>

>

>

>> If you don't like it, tell the judge, and tell him that if necessary

>> you

>> will do the jail time.Don't blame it on the judge, not if you signed

>> the

>> paper saying you would go there. Anything less is hypocritical.

>

> But, if he was given the alternative of either AA or jail, that is

> unconstitutional. He must also be given secular alternatives.

> Otherwise,

> the choice is no different from ordering him to either go to jail, or

> attend

> services at The First Church of Those Saved By the Blood of Jesus.

>

> How was he to know when he signed it that AA was a religion? However,

> I do

> agree he should simply make a motion for modification, first. Give

> the

> probation dept and the judge a chance to do the constitutional thing.

>

> --Mona--

Mona,

I seriously question the long-term benefit of " secular alternatives "

being " offered " by the state. It seems that there are two serious

dangers here. One is that they by its inherent nature " treatment "

changes one's world view and I don't know what business government has

of doing such a thing. Unfortunately, our founding fathers lived in a

time of competing theologies and never considered competing ideologies

like communism or fascism. When we have state approved therapy for

crimes, it essentially puts the state in charge of just what are

permissible thoughts and permissible feelings.

For example, imagine civil rights " rabble rouser " Parks getting

arrested for breaking the law -- refusing to sit on the back of the bus

or drinking out of a " whites only " water fountain or going into a

women's restroom instead of the one marked for her, " colored. " She

broke the law. The state, of course, never could compel her to go to a

religious group that would force her to knuckle under to America's

apartheid system, or any other religous group, for that matter. But

what if they had " treatment " for lawbreakers in 1960s Alabama? Would

any treatment that encouraged pride in oneself and standing up to an

evil system be one of the " alternatives " ? Of course not. What would be

allowed would be any ideological system which supported the status quo

-- any in which she learned " humility " or " acceptance " or that the

problem is not the system of apartheid, but " how she thinks about it. "

(Direct shot at SMART, meant more to be demonstrative than a shot.) The

whole idea of state sanctioned treatment scares the hell out of me.

The other concern of mine is that even if government could be trusted to

restrict its own power and act in the best interests of everyone (not

even a traditional American thought <G>), what would having a list a

acceptable therapies do except stiffle innovation?

Just some thoughts on the subject.

Ken Ragge

[Guest guest]

MonaHolland@... wrote:

> In a message dated 5/8/01 5:51:06 AM US Eastern Standard Time,

> mikdan7@... writes:

>

>

>

>> If you don't like it, tell the judge, and tell him that if necessary

>> you

>> will do the jail time.Don't blame it on the judge, not if you signed

>> the

>> paper saying you would go there. Anything less is hypocritical.

>

> But, if he was given the alternative of either AA or jail, that is

> unconstitutional. He must also be given secular alternatives.

> Otherwise,

> the choice is no different from ordering him to either go to jail, or

> attend

> services at The First Church of Those Saved By the Blood of Jesus.

>

> How was he to know when he signed it that AA was a religion? However,

> I do

> agree he should simply make a motion for modification, first. Give

> the

> probation dept and the judge a chance to do the constitutional thing.

>

> --Mona--

Mona,

I seriously question the long-term benefit of " secular alternatives "

being " offered " by the state. It seems that there are two serious

dangers here. One is that they by its inherent nature " treatment "

changes one's world view and I don't know what business government has

of doing such a thing. Unfortunately, our founding fathers lived in a

time of competing theologies and never considered competing ideologies

like communism or fascism. When we have state approved therapy for

crimes, it essentially puts the state in charge of just what are

permissible thoughts and permissible feelings.

For example, imagine civil rights " rabble rouser " Parks getting

arrested for breaking the law -- refusing to sit on the back of the bus

or drinking out of a " whites only " water fountain or going into a

women's restroom instead of the one marked for her, " colored. " She

broke the law. The state, of course, never could compel her to go to a

religious group that would force her to knuckle under to America's

apartheid system, or any other religous group, for that matter. But

what if they had " treatment " for lawbreakers in 1960s Alabama? Would

any treatment that encouraged pride in oneself and standing up to an

evil system be one of the " alternatives " ? Of course not. What would be

allowed would be any ideological system which supported the status quo

-- any in which she learned " humility " or " acceptance " or that the

problem is not the system of apartheid, but " how she thinks about it. "

(Direct shot at SMART, meant more to be demonstrative than a shot.) The

whole idea of state sanctioned treatment scares the hell out of me.

The other concern of mine is that even if government could be trusted to

restrict its own power and act in the best interests of everyone (not

even a traditional American thought <G>), what would having a list a

acceptable therapies do except stiffle innovation?

Just some thoughts on the subject.

Ken Ragge

[Guest guest]

MonaHolland@... wrote:

> In a message dated 5/8/01 5:51:06 AM US Eastern Standard Time,

> mikdan7@... writes:

>

>

>

>> If you don't like it, tell the judge, and tell him that if necessary

>> you

>> will do the jail time.Don't blame it on the judge, not if you signed

>> the

>> paper saying you would go there. Anything less is hypocritical.

>

> But, if he was given the alternative of either AA or jail, that is

> unconstitutional. He must also be given secular alternatives.

> Otherwise,

> the choice is no different from ordering him to either go to jail, or

> attend

> services at The First Church of Those Saved By the Blood of Jesus.

>

> How was he to know when he signed it that AA was a religion? However,

> I do

> agree he should simply make a motion for modification, first. Give

> the

> probation dept and the judge a chance to do the constitutional thing.

>

> --Mona--

Mona,

I seriously question the long-term benefit of " secular alternatives "

being " offered " by the state. It seems that there are two serious

dangers here. One is that they by its inherent nature " treatment "

changes one's world view and I don't know what business government has

of doing such a thing. Unfortunately, our founding fathers lived in a

time of competing theologies and never considered competing ideologies

like communism or fascism. When we have state approved therapy for

crimes, it essentially puts the state in charge of just what are

permissible thoughts and permissible feelings.

For example, imagine civil rights " rabble rouser " Parks getting

arrested for breaking the law -- refusing to sit on the back of the bus

or drinking out of a " whites only " water fountain or going into a

women's restroom instead of the one marked for her, " colored. " She

broke the law. The state, of course, never could compel her to go to a

religious group that would force her to knuckle under to America's

apartheid system, or any other religous group, for that matter. But

what if they had " treatment " for lawbreakers in 1960s Alabama? Would

any treatment that encouraged pride in oneself and standing up to an

evil system be one of the " alternatives " ? Of course not. What would be

allowed would be any ideological system which supported the status quo

-- any in which she learned " humility " or " acceptance " or that the

problem is not the system of apartheid, but " how she thinks about it. "

(Direct shot at SMART, meant more to be demonstrative than a shot.) The

whole idea of state sanctioned treatment scares the hell out of me.

The other concern of mine is that even if government could be trusted to

restrict its own power and act in the best interests of everyone (not

even a traditional American thought <G>), what would having a list a

acceptable therapies do except stiffle innovation?

Just some thoughts on the subject.

Ken Ragge

[Guest guest]

<snip>

Hi Harley,

<re Mike's posts>

> I really thaught this list was here for giving and receiving advice

> on the issue but it seems you're only here to put people down and

> from what it seems (praise AA).

> thanx for your input mike but with everyone else on this list who

are

> willing to lend a helping hand i really dont feel the need for your

> assistance anymore mike.

> thanx anyway.

> Harley

I am very sympathetic to your situation and I feel that you have come

to the right place. However, I didn't see that Mike's questioning of

your situation smacked of steppism or putting people down. I do think

he may have made an assumption about your situation that was

unwarranted, that you agreed to AA, but that doesn't equate in my mind

to praising AA. If his assumption had turned out to be correct, then

I do think he has a point. That said, I know that many many people

don't know what AA is all about until they're sucked into it bigtime.

Mike, I know you're new on the list too. Maybe an introduction so

that we knew where you were coming from would help.

Hicks

[Guest guest]

<snip>

Hi Harley,

<re Mike's posts>

> I really thaught this list was here for giving and receiving advice

> on the issue but it seems you're only here to put people down and

> from what it seems (praise AA).

> thanx for your input mike but with everyone else on this list who

are

> willing to lend a helping hand i really dont feel the need for your

> assistance anymore mike.

> thanx anyway.

> Harley

I am very sympathetic to your situation and I feel that you have come

to the right place. However, I didn't see that Mike's questioning of

your situation smacked of steppism or putting people down. I do think

he may have made an assumption about your situation that was

unwarranted, that you agreed to AA, but that doesn't equate in my mind

to praising AA. If his assumption had turned out to be correct, then

I do think he has a point. That said, I know that many many people

don't know what AA is all about until they're sucked into it bigtime.

Mike, I know you're new on the list too. Maybe an introduction so

that we knew where you were coming from would help.

Hicks

[Guest guest]

> there was never anything signed stating anything about AA.

> I did 30 days jail time on a 60 day sentance.

> to just assume i signed anything is just plain wrong on your behalf

Thank you for clarifying this. Like , I'm not following the list

closely these days and I'm not familiar with Mike either, so I'd like

to give him the benefit of the doubt. But red flags go up for me

whenever someone tells their story, and someone else comes along and

re-tells it in a significantly different way. That is exactly what

happened to me with 12 step treatment.

You came to the right place for advice. Welcome and best of luck.

judith

[Guest guest]

> there was never anything signed stating anything about AA.

> I did 30 days jail time on a 60 day sentance.

> to just assume i signed anything is just plain wrong on your behalf

Thank you for clarifying this. Like , I'm not following the list

closely these days and I'm not familiar with Mike either, so I'd like

to give him the benefit of the doubt. But red flags go up for me

whenever someone tells their story, and someone else comes along and

re-tells it in a significantly different way. That is exactly what

happened to me with 12 step treatment.

You came to the right place for advice. Welcome and best of luck.

judith

[Guest guest]

> there was never anything signed stating anything about AA.

> I did 30 days jail time on a 60 day sentance.

> to just assume i signed anything is just plain wrong on your behalf

Thank you for clarifying this. Like , I'm not following the list

closely these days and I'm not familiar with Mike either, so I'd like

to give him the benefit of the doubt. But red flags go up for me

whenever someone tells their story, and someone else comes along and

re-tells it in a significantly different way. That is exactly what

happened to me with 12 step treatment.

You came to the right place for advice. Welcome and best of luck.

judith

[Guest guest]

>

> I seriously question the long-term benefit of " secular alternatives "

> being " offered " by the state. It seems that there are two serious

> dangers here. One is that they by its inherent nature " treatment "

> changes one's world view and I don't know what business government has

> of doing such a thing. Unfortunately, our founding fathers lived in a

> time of competing theologies and never considered competing ideologies

> like communism or fascism. When we have state approved therapy for

> crimes, it essentially puts the state in charge of just what are

> permissible thoughts and permissible feelings.

>

> For example, imagine civil rights " rabble rouser " Parks getting

> arrested for breaking the law -- refusing to sit on the back of the bus

> or drinking out of a " whites only " water fountain or going into a

> women's restroom instead of the one marked for her, " colored. " She

> broke the law. The state, of course, never could compel her to go to a

> religious group that would force her to knuckle under to America's

> apartheid system, or any other religous group, for that matter. But

> what if they had " treatment " for lawbreakers in 1960s Alabama? Would

> any treatment that encouraged pride in oneself and standing up to an

> evil system be one of the " alternatives " ? Of course not. What would be

> allowed would be any ideological system which supported the status quo

> -- any in which she learned " humility " or " acceptance " or that the

> problem is not the system of apartheid, but " how she thinks about it. "

> (Direct shot at SMART, meant more to be demonstrative than a shot.) The

> whole idea of state sanctioned treatment scares the hell out of me.

>

> The other concern of mine is that even if government could be trusted to

> restrict its own power and act in the best interests of everyone (not

> even a traditional American thought <G>), what would having a list a

> acceptable therapies do except stiffle innovation?

>

> Just some thoughts on the subject.

>

> Ken Ragge

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

Right on, Ken! I too am very leery of any type of coerced " therapy. " I

know that I did not feel very much " less oppressed " when as part of the

settlement of my lawsuit, I was ordered to attend SMART instead of AA. I didn't

want or need ANY recovery groups! Yet I not only had to attend SMART and get

slips signed, but was grilled by my oppressors (EAP) who demanded I explain what

" things " SMART was teaching me about " how to stay sober " and who in SMART would

I contact if I got an urge to drink, etc. The assumption of " powerlessness " was

pervasive and neverending. I would not have been allowed back to work if I was

" rigorously honest " about the fact that I know perfectly well how to be sober

and wasn't learning anything at all in SMART.

Unfortunately, the right to be sober and responsible without outside " help "

is not guaranteed at this time. The best we can fight for right now is the

right to not have " help " consist of religious indoctrination. In that regard,

SMART is certainly a better alternative than AA -- neither religious nor

anti-intellectual.

~Rita

[Guest guest]

>

> I seriously question the long-term benefit of " secular alternatives "

> being " offered " by the state. It seems that there are two serious

> dangers here. One is that they by its inherent nature " treatment "

> changes one's world view and I don't know what business government has

> of doing such a thing. Unfortunately, our founding fathers lived in a

> time of competing theologies and never considered competing ideologies

> like communism or fascism. When we have state approved therapy for

> crimes, it essentially puts the state in charge of just what are

> permissible thoughts and permissible feelings.

>

> For example, imagine civil rights " rabble rouser " Parks getting

> arrested for breaking the law -- refusing to sit on the back of the bus

> or drinking out of a " whites only " water fountain or going into a

> women's restroom instead of the one marked for her, " colored. " She

> broke the law. The state, of course, never could compel her to go to a

> religious group that would force her to knuckle under to America's

> apartheid system, or any other religous group, for that matter. But

> what if they had " treatment " for lawbreakers in 1960s Alabama? Would

> any treatment that encouraged pride in oneself and standing up to an

> evil system be one of the " alternatives " ? Of course not. What would be

> allowed would be any ideological system which supported the status quo

> -- any in which she learned " humility " or " acceptance " or that the

> problem is not the system of apartheid, but " how she thinks about it. "

> (Direct shot at SMART, meant more to be demonstrative than a shot.) The

> whole idea of state sanctioned treatment scares the hell out of me.

>

> The other concern of mine is that even if government could be trusted to

> restrict its own power and act in the best interests of everyone (not

> even a traditional American thought <G>), what would having a list a

> acceptable therapies do except stiffle innovation?

>

> Just some thoughts on the subject.

>

> Ken Ragge

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

Right on, Ken! I too am very leery of any type of coerced " therapy. " I

know that I did not feel very much " less oppressed " when as part of the

settlement of my lawsuit, I was ordered to attend SMART instead of AA. I didn't

want or need ANY recovery groups! Yet I not only had to attend SMART and get

slips signed, but was grilled by my oppressors (EAP) who demanded I explain what

" things " SMART was teaching me about " how to stay sober " and who in SMART would

I contact if I got an urge to drink, etc. The assumption of " powerlessness " was

pervasive and neverending. I would not have been allowed back to work if I was

" rigorously honest " about the fact that I know perfectly well how to be sober

and wasn't learning anything at all in SMART.

Unfortunately, the right to be sober and responsible without outside " help "

is not guaranteed at this time. The best we can fight for right now is the

right to not have " help " consist of religious indoctrination. In that regard,

SMART is certainly a better alternative than AA -- neither religious nor

anti-intellectual.

~Rita

[Guest guest]

>

> I seriously question the long-term benefit of " secular alternatives "

> being " offered " by the state. It seems that there are two serious

> dangers here. One is that they by its inherent nature " treatment "

> changes one's world view and I don't know what business government has

> of doing such a thing. Unfortunately, our founding fathers lived in a

> time of competing theologies and never considered competing ideologies

> like communism or fascism. When we have state approved therapy for

> crimes, it essentially puts the state in charge of just what are

> permissible thoughts and permissible feelings.

>

> For example, imagine civil rights " rabble rouser " Parks getting

> arrested for breaking the law -- refusing to sit on the back of the bus

> or drinking out of a " whites only " water fountain or going into a

> women's restroom instead of the one marked for her, " colored. " She

> broke the law. The state, of course, never could compel her to go to a

> religious group that would force her to knuckle under to America's

> apartheid system, or any other religous group, for that matter. But

> what if they had " treatment " for lawbreakers in 1960s Alabama? Would

> any treatment that encouraged pride in oneself and standing up to an

> evil system be one of the " alternatives " ? Of course not. What would be

> allowed would be any ideological system which supported the status quo

> -- any in which she learned " humility " or " acceptance " or that the

> problem is not the system of apartheid, but " how she thinks about it. "

> (Direct shot at SMART, meant more to be demonstrative than a shot.) The

> whole idea of state sanctioned treatment scares the hell out of me.

>

> The other concern of mine is that even if government could be trusted to

> restrict its own power and act in the best interests of everyone (not

> even a traditional American thought <G>), what would having a list a

> acceptable therapies do except stiffle innovation?

>

> Just some thoughts on the subject.

>

> Ken Ragge

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

Right on, Ken! I too am very leery of any type of coerced " therapy. " I

know that I did not feel very much " less oppressed " when as part of the

settlement of my lawsuit, I was ordered to attend SMART instead of AA. I didn't

want or need ANY recovery groups! Yet I not only had to attend SMART and get

slips signed, but was grilled by my oppressors (EAP) who demanded I explain what

" things " SMART was teaching me about " how to stay sober " and who in SMART would

I contact if I got an urge to drink, etc. The assumption of " powerlessness " was

pervasive and neverending. I would not have been allowed back to work if I was

" rigorously honest " about the fact that I know perfectly well how to be sober

and wasn't learning anything at all in SMART.

Unfortunately, the right to be sober and responsible without outside " help "

is not guaranteed at this time. The best we can fight for right now is the

right to not have " help " consist of religious indoctrination. In that regard,

SMART is certainly a better alternative than AA -- neither religious nor

anti-intellectual.

~Rita

[Guest guest]

I hope anyone making the case against coerced treatment whether in a

legal suit, op-ed, petition, etc. will take advantage of the fact

that in an AA publication (Grapevine) an AA board member (Vaillant)

admits that 60 percent of recovery takes place outside of AA.

(And this might be an understatement)

[Guest guest]

I hope anyone making the case against coerced treatment whether in a

legal suit, op-ed, petition, etc. will take advantage of the fact

that in an AA publication (Grapevine) an AA board member (Vaillant)

admits that 60 percent of recovery takes place outside of AA.

(And this might be an understatement)

[Guest guest]

I was coerced into AA by my professional body . I was read out a list of conditions . Question . Do you accept these ? The alternative was to say no and be suspended . I was given no time to consider the implications , only the option to go to an expensive appeal .

I was in such a state of shock at the time , I just said yes to all of them , AA included . I had an ass-hole of a lawyer who thought AA was a 'good thing ' When I got the condition removed 18 months later ( last July ) he had wanted me to agree to having ,' attend support groups 'to replace AA . I had a row and got my way !

[Guest guest]

I was coerced into AA by my professional body . I was read out a list of conditions . Question . Do you accept these ? The alternative was to say no and be suspended . I was given no time to consider the implications , only the option to go to an expensive appeal .

I was in such a state of shock at the time , I just said yes to all of them , AA included . I had an ass-hole of a lawyer who thought AA was a 'good thing ' When I got the condition removed 18 months later ( last July ) he had wanted me to agree to having ,' attend support groups 'to replace AA . I had a row and got my way !

[Guest guest]

It's amazing to me how brainwashed everyone (including me, at one

time) has been into thinking that you do need a recovery group. I

remember how relieved I felt when I suddenly realized that this was a

baseless assumption. Yet I had believed it for years, probably before

ever going to tx, without even thinking about it, because that's what

this society believes. (Sounds like Rita's counselor's were trying to

make SMART into some kind of ersatz AA.)

> I was coerced into AA by my professional body .

> I was read out a list of conditions . Question . Do you accept these

?

> The alternative was to say no and be suspended .

> I was given no time to consider the implications , only the option

to go to

> an expensive appeal .

> I was in such a state of shock at the time , I just said yes to all

of them ,

> AA included .

> I had an ass-hole of a lawyer who thought AA was a 'good thing '

> When I got the condition removed 18 months later ( last July ) he

had wanted

> me to agree to having ,' attend support groups 'to replace AA .

> I had a row and got my way !

>

[Guest guest]

It's amazing to me how brainwashed everyone (including me, at one

time) has been into thinking that you do need a recovery group. I

remember how relieved I felt when I suddenly realized that this was a

baseless assumption. Yet I had believed it for years, probably before

ever going to tx, without even thinking about it, because that's what

this society believes. (Sounds like Rita's counselor's were trying to

make SMART into some kind of ersatz AA.)

> I was coerced into AA by my professional body .

> I was read out a list of conditions . Question . Do you accept these

?

> The alternative was to say no and be suspended .

> I was given no time to consider the implications , only the option

to go to

> an expensive appeal .

> I was in such a state of shock at the time , I just said yes to all

of them ,

> AA included .

> I had an ass-hole of a lawyer who thought AA was a 'good thing '

> When I got the condition removed 18 months later ( last July ) he

had wanted

> me to agree to having ,' attend support groups 'to replace AA .

> I had a row and got my way !

>

[Guest guest]

It's amazing to me how brainwashed everyone (including me, at one

time) has been into thinking that you do need a recovery group. I

remember how relieved I felt when I suddenly realized that this was a

baseless assumption. Yet I had believed it for years, probably before

ever going to tx, without even thinking about it, because that's what

this society believes. (Sounds like Rita's counselor's were trying to

make SMART into some kind of ersatz AA.)

> I was coerced into AA by my professional body .

> I was read out a list of conditions . Question . Do you accept these

?

> The alternative was to say no and be suspended .

> I was given no time to consider the implications , only the option

to go to

> an expensive appeal .

> I was in such a state of shock at the time , I just said yes to all

of them ,

> AA included .

> I had an ass-hole of a lawyer who thought AA was a 'good thing '

> When I got the condition removed 18 months later ( last July ) he

had wanted

> me to agree to having ,' attend support groups 'to replace AA .

> I had a row and got my way !

>

[Guest guest]

Hi .

I accidentally fell over your mail, and it set off a stream of thoughts that I would like to "share" with you.

It's been some kind of discussion about differences on opinion amongst people opposing AA.

I do think there is some similarities, but also very different expressions of this similarity.

This, I think, is because AA is floating over it's natural banks, and is touching several institutions and beliefs in society that will eventually fight back.

But when they do they almost exclusively gets an experience that confirms their view.

No matter if you're an former problem drinker, journalist, psychiatrist, psychologist, lawyer, soldier, woman, politician, police man, different, etc.

I think I joined 12-step-free for about 3 years ago, but have been in and out.

When I read your mail I thought. "That's it. That's what they are doing to everyone, and that's exactly what scares me!"

It's like I've heard the same melody in so many voices. They're not only mistaken, they are hurting really living people when they try to defend their human dignity.

You always start out with thinking they're wrong, but if you voice it you'll discover that they are not only wrong. They represent evil too.

I've been interested in AA since 1978 from an academically point of view, but in 1988 it got this second emotion when I discovered that an article I wrote in a Danish paper resulted in attempts of character murder and disguised threats about physical injury.

Personally I'm more a coward than a hero, but the nazis gave my mother a life sentence, and my father smuggled weapons into the Norwegian mountains from the coast. When discovered he fled to Sweden and from there to Scotland by plane.

Therefore I feel some obligation to fight back, even though I could easily have a calm and decent life forgetting it all.

Actually my 'resistance' could possibly jeopardize my present living conditions, but I just thought AA should know that they picked the wrong guy when they threatened me.

I think I owe this to my parents.

But honestly speaking I would rather be without my knowledge/experience.

Your mail kicked these thoughts off.

Best

Bjørn

Re: Re: forced into AA

I was coerced into AA by my professional body . I was read out a list of conditions . Question . Do you accept these ? The alternative was to say no and be suspended . I was given no time to consider the implications , only the option to go to an expensive appeal . I was in such a state of shock at the time , I just said yes to all of them , AA included . I had an ass-hole of a lawyer who thought AA was a 'good thing ' When I got the condition removed 18 months later ( last July ) he had wanted me to agree to having ,' attend support groups 'to replace AA . I had a row and got my way !