Re: LSR in Pittsburgh

[Guest guest]

Hi Rita ...

You wrote:

>However, I CANNOT support LSR allowing themselves to be used as agents

of the state -- slip-signing and such -- thereby aiding and abetting the

practice of assuming and demanding that people " MUST " attend recovery support

groups in order to be sober and responsible.<

Thank you for a very thoughtful and provocative message. Having been there,

too, my answer is simple:

Theory aside -- in the real world -- judges in Pennsylvania are going to

" sentence " people to attend AA, at least until we can have that changed. And

I have seen far too many good people harmed, demoralized & distracted by

mandatory AA that I feel some more accessible & common sense alternative must

be provided as soon as possible.

Again, in the real world, the majority of people are not sophisticated, do

not use the internet, do not have lawyers or time or money to challenge the

system. They go like sheep.

I apologize if this seems condescending or paternalistic, but it reflects my

experience from many years and several roles in the addiction & abuse field.

Thanks again - Pittsburgh (in Pittsburgh)

[Guest guest]

>From: PITNews1@...

>Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 06:27:47 EDT

>Reply-To: 12-step-freeegroups

>Subject: LSR in Pittsburgh

(snip)

>

>An eventual third phase will be contacting Adult Probation services to get

>our meeting approved as a recognized rehabilitation activity for the

>substantial court-ordered DUI population.

>

>

>Thoughts? Comments?

>

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

Hi Bill --

I'm glad LSR is getting underway in Pittsburgh -- I've long advocated it as

a great alternative for people desiring a support group but utterly turned off

by Step philosophy. (I think it particularly compatible with the ideals of

Judaism, whereas Steppism is not.)

However, I CANNOT support LSR allowing themselves to be used as agents of

the state -- slip-signing and such -- thereby aiding and abetting the practice

of assuming and demanding that people " MUST " attend recovery support groups in

order to be sober and responsible. Fact is, some people find support groups

helpful and meaningful, some do not -- and why penalize (with jail, job loss,

loss of custody of children, etc.) people who can be and are SOBER WITHOUT ANY

PROGRAM??

Why would any " support " group want their meeting rooms filled with people

who have no interest or desire to be participants? And probably resent having

to take time from their families and/or other activities which ARE meaningful

for them to reforming their behavior?

I've been there, Bill. Part of the settlement of my lawsuit against the

railroad for making me attend 5 AA meetings a week, and also answer

interrogations to demonstrate that I was " internalizing 12-step principles " , was

that I was " allowed " (i.e. REQUIRED) to attend SMART instead. By that time my

misbehavior was 5 months behind me, and also I was being tested 2 or 3 times a

week for drugs and alcohol, so they knew I was not abusing any substances. (And

the railroad has a 24-hour lab and could have continued to test me.) I had

absolutely no need for SMART. But still I was not allowed back to work until I

presented 8 weeks worth of attendance slips, and answered ridiculous questions

about what I have " internalized " about SMART, and what methods they have taught

me about " arresting my disease " , etc. They even demanded that I name my

" sponsor " in SMART!! I had to lie and make up bizarre answers in order to go

back to work. If I had been truthful and stated that I ha!

ve no ongoing problem, and rely on my own commitment to responsible behavior to

avoid inappropriate alcohol use, they never would have let me back to work. I

was required to " prove " something that wasn't true -- that my negative d/a tests

were attributable to my SMART attendance, and therefore coerced SMART is a good

thing. In what manner was this superior to coerced AA attendance?

I think LSR would do itself credit if it made a public statement that it is

a VOLUNTARY, CONFIDENTIAL support group for those who desire it, that there is

no set number or frequency of meetings that anyone needs to attend to be sober,

and that therefore they will not support court-ordered attendance or sign any

slips. I wish the SMART coordinator in my area had done that.

~Rita

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

--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--

Before you buy.

[Guest guest]

>From: PITNews1@...

>Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 06:27:47 EDT

>Reply-To: 12-step-freeegroups

>Subject: LSR in Pittsburgh

(snip)

>

>An eventual third phase will be contacting Adult Probation services to get

>our meeting approved as a recognized rehabilitation activity for the

>substantial court-ordered DUI population.

>

>

>Thoughts? Comments?

>

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

Hi Bill --

I'm glad LSR is getting underway in Pittsburgh -- I've long advocated it as

a great alternative for people desiring a support group but utterly turned off

by Step philosophy. (I think it particularly compatible with the ideals of

Judaism, whereas Steppism is not.)

However, I CANNOT support LSR allowing themselves to be used as agents of

the state -- slip-signing and such -- thereby aiding and abetting the practice

of assuming and demanding that people " MUST " attend recovery support groups in

order to be sober and responsible. Fact is, some people find support groups

helpful and meaningful, some do not -- and why penalize (with jail, job loss,

loss of custody of children, etc.) people who can be and are SOBER WITHOUT ANY

PROGRAM??

Why would any " support " group want their meeting rooms filled with people

who have no interest or desire to be participants? And probably resent having

to take time from their families and/or other activities which ARE meaningful

for them to reforming their behavior?

I've been there, Bill. Part of the settlement of my lawsuit against the

railroad for making me attend 5 AA meetings a week, and also answer

interrogations to demonstrate that I was " internalizing 12-step principles " , was

that I was " allowed " (i.e. REQUIRED) to attend SMART instead. By that time my

misbehavior was 5 months behind me, and also I was being tested 2 or 3 times a

week for drugs and alcohol, so they knew I was not abusing any substances. (And

the railroad has a 24-hour lab and could have continued to test me.) I had

absolutely no need for SMART. But still I was not allowed back to work until I

presented 8 weeks worth of attendance slips, and answered ridiculous questions

about what I have " internalized " about SMART, and what methods they have taught

me about " arresting my disease " , etc. They even demanded that I name my

" sponsor " in SMART!! I had to lie and make up bizarre answers in order to go

back to work. If I had been truthful and stated that I ha!

ve no ongoing problem, and rely on my own commitment to responsible behavior to

avoid inappropriate alcohol use, they never would have let me back to work. I

was required to " prove " something that wasn't true -- that my negative d/a tests

were attributable to my SMART attendance, and therefore coerced SMART is a good

thing. In what manner was this superior to coerced AA attendance?

I think LSR would do itself credit if it made a public statement that it is

a VOLUNTARY, CONFIDENTIAL support group for those who desire it, that there is

no set number or frequency of meetings that anyone needs to attend to be sober,

and that therefore they will not support court-ordered attendance or sign any

slips. I wish the SMART coordinator in my area had done that.

~Rita

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

--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--

Before you buy.

[Guest guest]

At 07:10 AM 10/12/00 -0700, you wrote:

> I think LSR would do itself credit if it made a public statement

> that it is a VOLUNTARY, CONFIDENTIAL support group for those who desire

> it, that there is no set number or frequency of meetings that anyone

> needs to attend to be sober, and that therefore they will not support

> court-ordered attendance or sign any slips. I wish the SMART coordinator

> in my area had done that.

An interesting variation on this would be for a group to announce that

it will sign slips for all comers, regardless of whether or not the

signee chooses to stay for the actual meeting.

Of course I suppose the courts and businesses would then just

cease allowing such a group to " count. " But it would be an

interesting and principled approach.

[Guest guest]

...

We've discussed this & WOULD sign anybody's slip BEFORE the meeting. Then their

staying would be voluntary and (possibly) helpful to themselves & the group.

Rita's notion of being " an agent of the state " hurts. The state will do what

it's gonna do. I would hope to be " an agent of the recoverer " (or whatever one

would be called) in minimizing the harm caused by the state.

Remember, too, that the state is not penalizing drinking or drugging -- it is

penalizing (at least in Pennsylvania) driving while impaired.

- Bill (in Pittsburgh)

[Guest guest]

In the future, could you please note when you've sent mail to both

the list and my personal address? Now I have to redo my response.

At 02:48 PM 10/12/00 -0400, you wrote:

> ...

>

>We've discussed this & WOULD sign anybody's slip BEFORE the meeting. Then

>their staying would be voluntary and (possibly) helpful to themselves &

>the group.

Heck, I'd sign 'em myself if I knew anyone who had slips to sign. Come

watch Star Trek or Ally McBeal with me, and I'll call it a Distraction from

Alcohol meeting and sign your slip.

>Rita's notion of being " an agent of the state " hurts. The state will do

>what it's gonna do. I would hope to be " an agent of the recoverer " (or

>whatever one would be called) in minimizing the harm caused by the state.

Yes . . . if you refuse to sign slips at all, it only aids in coercing people

back to AA. It sounds like you're trying to minimize harm. I admire

that.

>Remember, too, that the state is not penalizing drinking or drugging -- it

>is penalizing (at least in Pennsylvania) driving while impaired.

Well, partly. It's also making money hand over fist.

[Guest guest]

Hi Bill, Rita, folks

Whether to sign slips must be a toughie for a non-AA group. First

thing to note is that as groups like Lifering are not religious,

coercion to them cercion to them isnt a violation of religious

freedom. Hence arguably for acourt to do this is reasonable.

However, we know that AA's are generally braindead (and sometimes

courts) and this distinction may well be lost on them.

Similarly signing to " keep 'em out of jail/AA " will of course very

likely not be distinguished from " sign 'em to keep 'em out of jail "

either. Signing, even letting them go home still requires them to

show up and draws the group into basically doing probation work, and

also if the courts knew that ppl were being sent home could also

discredit it and make the courts refuse to accept them and force them

to AA. It's still probably the best option though imo, but this

rerally is a toughie.

DO ppl remember the fuss abt the ACLU lawyer who founght an

AA-coercion case and on her death bed admitted she was an AA member?

(Can anyone give me a URL for this case btw?) Apart from the obvious

implications it is worth reading the case that she actually presented.

Rather than use the religious argument, which of course she would not

believe in, she used an interesting argument that simply demanding

that a citizen self describe themself as an " alcoholic " was

unconstitutional. This could conceivably be used against non-AA group

coercion, but presumably not if there were no need for

self-identification, such as the traditional self-introduction in AA.

I think that that argument might in any case of failed - although she

seemed to argue the case well, it was outrageous she relied solely on

this objection since inclusion of religious objections would have made

the case much stronger. For those resisting coercion, it might be a

good idea that you insist your lawyer drink alcohol in front of you

before accepting them. Although of ocurse, that would by no means

prove that they definitely weren't an AA member...

P.

> ...

>

> We've discussed this & WOULD sign anybody's slip BEFORE the meeting.

Then their staying would be voluntary and (possibly) helpful to

themselves & the group.

>

> Rita's notion of being " an agent of the state " hurts. The state will

do what it's gonna do. I would hope to be " an agent of the recoverer "

(or whatever one would be called) in minimizing the harm caused by the

state.

>

> Remember, too, that the state is not penalizing drinking or drugging

-- it is penalizing (at least in Pennsylvania) driving while impaired.

>

> - Bill (in Pittsburgh)

[Guest guest]

>To: <12-step-freeegroups>

>From: PITNews1@...

>Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 14:48:23 EDT

>Reply-To: 12-step-freeegroups

>Subject: re: LSR in Pittsburgh

>

>Rita's notion of being " an agent of the state " hurts. The state will do what

it's gonna do. I would hope to be " an agent of the recoverer " (or whatever one

would be called) in minimizing the harm caused by the state.

>

>Remember, too, that the state is not penalizing drinking or drugging -- it is

penalizing (at least in Pennsylvania) driving while impaired.

>

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

With all due respect, Bill, that's exactly why coercion into ANY kind of

" help " for alcoholism is wrong and should be vigorously and visibly opposed.

The vast majority (2/3, according to one study) of people arrested for DUI

aren't even alcoholics, and have no reason to be pursuing a course of total

lifetime abstinence. How dare any judge, without even ordering an expert

evaluation, decide that someone is " alcoholic " and order them to attend LSR or

any other abstinence-oriented program which first of all is supposed to be

completely voluntary, including how often to attend (not externally mandated 3

times a week for 3 months!) and second of all is intended for people who have a

very serious alcohol dependency that has negatively impacted every area of their

life?

It is infantilizing to order " help " for adults who don't need it.

And do you really want LSR to be thought of as a " punishment " ?

You're absolutely right that the wrong in DUI is the DRIVING, not the

drinking. So the courts should be addressing that! More and more states and

counties are utilizing a combination of stiff fines and installation of

ignition-interlock Breathalyzers which directly prevent driving while impaired

by alcohol (paid for by the person convicted of the DUI) for the entire

probationary period -- usually a year or two. This approach has been proven

repeatedly to reduce recidivism by a very significant margin. " Treatment "

alone, whether in the form of AA or secular counseling, just has not produced

results. The only possible conclusion to be drawn is that the mandated

counseling/recovery meetings are imposed for political reasons -- so they can

say, " We're so enlightened, we don't punish people for their disease over which

they are powerless, we help them!! " Very paternalistic! And of course, those

coerced-meeting people who have no repeat of the misbehavior, but wouldn't h!

ave anyway (as they really didn't have an alcohol disorder) are counted as

success statistics, to further stroke the egos of the people doing the coercing.

Why be part of such a system?

~Rita

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

--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--

Before you buy.

[Guest guest]

Rita, all your points are valid. But, to pick up where you left off, with

the question " Why be part of such a system? " , I might answer it as follows:

Because we don't live in utopia. Signing the slips gives the alternative

groups more visibility and greater perceived legitimacy. In the long run the

availability of 'alternatives' like LSR could lead to the 'disestablishment'

of AA, and it is the AA philosophy that is the basis of the whole stupid

evil system of legally coerced 'treatment.'

At any rate that's an argument. It isn't one I would defend to the death.

ly I don't know for sure what's 'right,' or even what is most

expedient.

-- wally

re: LSR in Pittsburgh

>

>>

>>Rita's notion of being " an agent of the state " hurts. The state will do

what it's gonna do. I would hope to be " an agent of the recoverer " (or

whatever one would be called) in minimizing the harm caused by the state.

>>

>>Remember, too, that the state is not penalizing drinking or drugging -- it

is penalizing (at least in Pennsylvania) driving while impaired.

>>

>

>-------------------

>

> With all due respect, Bill, that's exactly why coercion into ANY kind

of " help " for alcoholism is wrong and should be vigorously and visibly

opposed.

>

> The vast majority (2/3, according to one study) of people arrested for

DUI aren't even alcoholics, and have no reason to be pursuing a course of

total lifetime abstinence. How dare any judge, without even ordering an

expert evaluation, decide that someone is " alcoholic " and order them to

attend LSR or any other abstinence-oriented program which first of all is

supposed to be completely voluntary, including how often to attend (not

externally mandated 3 times a week for 3 months!) and second of all is

intended for people who have a very serious alcohol dependency that has

negatively impacted every area of their life?

>

> It is infantilizing to order " help " for adults who don't need it.

>

> And do you really want LSR to be thought of as a " punishment " ?

>

> You're absolutely right that the wrong in DUI is the DRIVING, not the

drinking. So the courts should be addressing that! More and more states

and counties are utilizing a combination of stiff fines and installation of

ignition-interlock Breathalyzers which directly prevent driving while

impaired by alcohol (paid for by the person convicted of the DUI) for the

entire probationary period -- usually a year or two. This approach has been

proven repeatedly to reduce recidivism by a very significant margin.

" Treatment " alone, whether in the form of AA or secular counseling, just has

not produced results. The only possible conclusion to be drawn is that the

mandated counseling/recovery meetings are imposed for political reasons --

so they can say, " We're so enlightened, we don't punish people for their

disease over which they are powerless, we help them!! " Very paternalistic!

And of course, those coerced-meeting people who have no repeat of the

misbehavior, but wouldn't h!

>ave anyway (as they really didn't have an alcohol disorder) are counted as

success statistics, to further stroke the egos of the people doing the

coercing.

>

> Why be part of such a system?

>

>~Rita

[Guest guest]

Hi ...

> In the future, could you please note when you've sent mail to both

> the list and my personal address? Now I have to redo my response.

Sorry about that. I'm not normally so ignorant, but was using a borrowed

computer for remote access to my AOL account and didn't know what I was doing.

- Bill

[Guest guest]

Rita, , Pete & all ...

Rita wrote:

> I think LSR would do itself credit if it made a public statement that

> it is a VOLUNTARY, CONFIDENTIAL support group for those who desire it, that

> there is no set number or frequency of meetings that anyone needs to attend

> to be sober, and that therefore they will not support court-ordered

> attendance or sign any slips.<

One of the reasons you don't see me on this list very often is that I find

12-step-free to be more concerned with issues of xA and official oppression

than with the more individual-focused issues of how to successfully leave

(and stay LEFT) from the drinking-using life.

No way do I speak for LSR. Rather, I am one LSR member who is fortunate to

have time, energy & connections to establish and grow a local LSR

organization.

My affection for LSR stems from the fact that it is not anti- anything.

Adherents of AA, NA, SMART, Women In Sobriety, devout Jews & Christians,

witches, pagans, atheists -- even (sigh) yuppies -- all are welcome.

LSR, to my knowledge, has but one requirement -- a commitment to abstinence

by those who realize that drinking and drugging are things they no longer

wish to do.

The group's slogan is " Don't Drink (or Use) No Matter What. " I'm told the

unofficial slogan is " Don't Put That Shit In Your Mouth. "

I've found it to be a place to take what one has and leave with what one

wants -- pure support, experience & opinion sharing, education -- all those

good things that equip one to do what wants doing.

If you want to know more, see www.unhooked.com.

That said, I think issues of whether or not to sign court-ordered attendance

slips are entirely secondary and distracting from the primary goal -- to get

established and get visible so more people may benefit from a humane,

accessible, common-sense, knowledge-based method of " recovery " (not my

favorite word).

Does this help?

Thank & best wishes - Bill (in Pittsburgh)

[Guest guest]

> > DO ppl remember the fuss abt the ACLU lawyer who founght an

> AA-coercion case and on her death bed admitted she was an AA

member?

> (Can anyone give me a URL for this case btw?) Apart from the

obvious

> implications it is worth reading the case that she actually

presented.

> Rather than use the religious argument, which of course she would

not

> believe in, she used an interesting argument that simply demanding

> that a citizen self describe themself as an " alcoholic " was

> unconstitutional.

Pete,

I don't know about a URL, but the case is discussed by

Schaller in his recent book ADDICTION IS A CHOICE. I imagine you

might find a reference on his web site.

I think Rita and Bob have more expertise than I do regarding the

legal fine points, but I am going to take a stab at it anyway. It

was not (IIRC) that the lawyer didn't raise the freedom of religion

issue. Rather it is a matter of how she framed the issue. There are

two principals involved. One is the " free exercise, " while the other

is the " establishment. " By raising only the free exercise issue the

lawyer left in place the right of the state to order people into AA

as long as they were given a secular alternative.

There was recent law review article arguing for the broader

interpretation. Hopefully someone has the URL for that handy.

[Guest guest]

I believe it was Carrol who posted that URL a few months back. I

can't seem to find it. I did an " Ellen Luff " search on Google with

no

success. Perhaps would know.

> Hi Bill, Rita, folks

>

>

>

> DO ppl remember the fuss abt the ACLU lawyer who founght an

> AA-coercion case and on her death bed admitted she was an AA

member?

> (Can anyone give me a URL for this case btw?) Apart from the

obvious

> implications it is worth reading the case that she actually

presented.

> Rather than use the religious argument, which of course she would

not

> believe in, she used an interesting argument that simply demanding

> that a citizen self describe themself as an " alcoholic " was

> unconstitutional. This could conceivably be used against non-AA

group

> coercion, but presumably not if there were no need for

> self-identification, such as the traditional self-introduction in

AA.

> I think that that argument might in any case of failed - although

she

> seemed to argue the case well, it was outrageous she relied solely

on

> this objection since inclusion of religious objections would have

made

> the case much stronger. For those resisting coercion, it might be

a

> good idea that you insist your lawyer drink alcohol in front of you

> before accepting them. Although of ocurse, that would by no means

> prove that they definitely weren't an AA member...

>

> P.

>

[Guest guest]

> That said, I think issues of whether or not to sign court-ordered

attendance slips are entirely secondary and distracting from the

primary goal to get established and get visible so more people may

benefit from a humane, accessible, common-sense, knowledge-based

method of " recovery " (not my favorite word).

>

> Does this help?

Sorry Bill,

Not me it doesnt. At this, and at a couple of other places, you use

the self same kind of justifications steppers use. If anything, I

would say the " distracting " thing to do IS to sign the slip. Why

should you concern yourself with doing the State's probation work,

for ppl who may well not even be alcohol/substance dependent and

resent their coercion bitterly? Now, as I've said before, for LSR or

other secular groups to do it is more acceptable imo than for AA, but

there are still many concerns here, many of which Rita has eloquently

put. Many DUI's are not alcohol dependents or regular alcohol

abusers; even if they are, USE of alcohol is not illegal, and they are

only obliged to not break laws and obey community standards on

drunkenness so why should they commit to abstaining from it? Why not

make them go to groups where they swear off ever driving again? It

would make no less sense, and if their licenses are gone, is something

they have to do if only temporarily. Even if they are " diseased " -

isnt it up to them how they choose to address this fact?

Again, signing their slips at the beginning and letting them scoot is

imo probably appropriate, but actively seeking coerfcion, or turning a

blind eye to it happening, is much more suspect imo - certainly it

needs more than AA-style rationalizations to justify it.

P.

[Guest guest]

Pete, you're doing it again. Imputing " stepper " -like qualities to Bill is

completely unjustified and wrong.

--wally

Re: LSR in Pittsburgh

>

>

>> That said, I think issues of whether or not to sign court-ordered

>attendance slips are entirely secondary and distracting from the

>primary goal to get established and get visible so more people may

>benefit from a humane, accessible, common-sense, knowledge-based

>method of " recovery " (not my favorite word).

>>

>> Does this help?

>

>Sorry Bill,

>

>Not me it doesnt. At this, and at a couple of other places, you use

>the self same kind of justifications steppers use. If anything, I

>would say the " distracting " thing to do IS to sign the slip. Why

>should you concern yourself with doing the State's probation work,

>for ppl who may well not even be alcohol/substance dependent and

>resent their coercion bitterly? Now, as I've said before, for LSR or

>other secular groups to do it is more acceptable imo than for AA, but

>there are still many concerns here, many of which Rita has eloquently

>put. Many DUI's are not alcohol dependents or regular alcohol

>abusers; even if they are, USE of alcohol is not illegal, and they are

>only obliged to not break laws and obey community standards on

>drunkenness so why should they commit to abstaining from it? Why not

>make them go to groups where they swear off ever driving again? It

>would make no less sense, and if their licenses are gone, is something

>they have to do if only temporarily. Even if they are " diseased " -

>isnt it up to them how they choose to address this fact?

>

>Again, signing their slips at the beginning and letting them scoot is

>imo probably appropriate, but actively seeking coerfcion, or turning a

>blind eye to it happening, is much more suspect imo - certainly it

>needs more than AA-style rationalizations to justify it.

>

>P.

[Guest guest]

PITNews1@... wrote:

> Rita, , Pete & all ...

>

> Rita wrote:

>

> > I think LSR would do itself credit if it made a public statement that

> > it is a VOLUNTARY, CONFIDENTIAL support group for those who desire it, that

> > there is no set number or frequency of meetings that anyone needs to attend

> > to be sober, and that therefore they will not support court-ordered

> > attendance or sign any slips.<

>

> One of the reasons you don't see me on this list very often is that I find

> 12-step-free to be more concerned with issues of xA and official oppression

> than with the more individual-focused issues of how to successfully leave

> (and stay LEFT) from the drinking-using life.

>

> No way do I speak for LSR. Rather, I am one LSR member who is fortunate to

> have time, energy & connections to establish and grow a local LSR

> organization.

>

> My affection for LSR stems from the fact that it is not anti- anything.

> Adherents of AA, NA, SMART, Women In Sobriety, devout Jews & Christians,

> witches, pagans, atheists -- even (sigh) yuppies -- all are welcome.

>

> LSR, to my knowledge, has but one requirement -- a commitment to abstinence

> by those who realize that drinking and drugging are things they no longer

> wish to do.

>

> The group's slogan is " Don't Drink (or Use) No Matter What. " I'm told the

> unofficial slogan is " Don't Put That Shit In Your Mouth. "

>

> I've found it to be a place to take what one has and leave with what one

> wants -- pure support, experience & opinion sharing, education -- all those

> good things that equip one to do what wants doing.

>

> If you want to know more, see www.unhooked.com.

>

> That said, I think issues of whether or not to sign court-ordered attendance

> slips are entirely secondary and distracting from the primary goal -- to get

> established and get visible so more people may benefit from a humane,

> accessible, common-sense, knowledge-based method of " recovery " (not my

> favorite word).

>

Bill,

The last time in the West that curing disease became the primary goal was in

30s Germany.

It seems to me that organized community groups acting as agents of the state

is far over the line.

I ask you, what value do any of the rights in The Bill of Rights have in

terms of public health?

Ken Ragge

>

> Does this help?

>

> Thank & best wishes - Bill (in Pittsburgh)

[Guest guest]

Re: LSR in Pittsburgh

> PITNews1@... wrote:

>

> > Rita, , Pete & all ...

> >

> > Rita wrote:

> >

> > > I think LSR would do itself credit if it made a public statement that

> > > it is a VOLUNTARY, CONFIDENTIAL support group for those who desire it,

that

> > > there is no set number or frequency of meetings that anyone needs to

attend

> > > to be sober, and that therefore they will not support court-ordered

> > > attendance or sign any slips.<

> >

Any " support group " that gives the impression that introducing specific

pleasure inducing chemicals into one's own adult body is less than 100%

within their own purview and not easily and quickly solvable is quite

logically part of a program of " managing " " moderation " .

> > One of the reasons you don't see me on this list very often is that I

find

> > 12-step-free to be more concerned with issues of xA and official

oppression

> > than with the more individual-focused issues of how to successfully

leave

> > (and stay LEFT) from the drinking-using life.

> >

> > No way do I speak for LSR. Rather, I am one LSR member who is fortunate

to

> > have time, energy & connections to establish and grow a local LSR

> > organization.

> >

> > My affection for LSR stems from the fact that it is not anti- anything.

> > Adherents of AA, NA, SMART, Women In Sobriety, devout Jews & Christians,

> > witches, pagans, atheists -- even (sigh) yuppies -- all are welcome.

> >

Unfortunately, it is anti - " immediate-and-total-selfproclaimed-cure " ,

something RR fully acknowledges. Yet you oddly refer to it in your next

sentence.

> > LSR, to my knowledge, has but one requirement -- a commitment to

abstinence

> > by those who realize that drinking and drugging are things they no

longer

> > wish to do.

> >

This requirement is a valid acknolwledgement of human competence, but it

renders the whole rest of LSR obsolete and not only unnecessary, but counter

productive to the requirement.

> > The group's slogan is " Don't Drink (or Use) No Matter What. " I'm told

the

> > unofficial slogan is " Don't Put That Shit In Your Mouth. "

> >

> > I've found it to be a place to take what one has and leave with what one

> > wants -- pure support, experience & opinion sharing, education -- all

those

> > good things that equip one to do what wants doing.

> >

> > If you want to know more, see www.unhooked.com.

> >

> > That said, I think issues of whether or not to sign court-ordered

attendance

> > slips are entirely secondary and distracting from the primary goal -- to

get

> > established and get visible so more people may benefit from a humane,

> > accessible, common-sense, knowledge-based method of " recovery " (not my

> > favorite word).

> >

>

> Bill,

>

> The last time in the West that curing disease became the primary goal

was in

> 30s Germany.

>

Not sure what you mean by this.

> It seems to me that organized community groups acting as agents of the

state

> is far over the line.

>

There was a recent Frontline expose of the war on drugs. What people like

Sen. Biden have been hoodwinked into believing is that Recovery Groupism

Treatment is the answer. But no, it's just as corrupt, fraudulent, and

incestuously self-perpetuating as drug enforcement itself. In fact, the

Recovery Group Movement of which LSR is simply a new (BEAST) mutation, is

DEAD CENTER, THE HUB of the DRUG CULTURE itself, with all its spin and

centrifugal force - an insipidly devious social manifestation for folks who

get caught and don't want to quit. But for those who do want to quit, it is

the most harmful thing imaginable.

> I ask you, what value do any of the rights in The Bill of Rights have

in

> terms of public health?

>

If one considers today's recovery programs having anything to do with public

health, then they have all the value in the world.

I guess the initial position on the issue and defining terms is important

here.

Dave Trippel

> Ken Ragge

>

>

> >

> > Does this help?

> >

> > Thank & best wishes - Bill (in Pittsburgh)

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

> Pete, you're doing it again. Imputing " stepper " -like qualities to

Bill is

> completely unjustified and wrong.

Wally,

Whether or not I've done 'it' previously to others, I did not impute

" stepper-like qualities " to Bill - I said his *arguments* in regard

to slip signing are like stepper ones, and they are, with just two

exceptions:

1) Start of meeting signing with option to go home.

2) " Keep pour soul out of AA " is added to/substituted for " Keep poor

soul out of jail " .

These are definite improvements, but by no means non-problematical

imo. Using thse rationalizations LSR still benefits from AA coercion,

and AA coercion will be harder to combat in practive even if in theory

it should make no difference. Rather than undermining AA's hegemony,

it actually strengthens some of its doctrines.

P.

[Guest guest]

I don't know of any state that does require AA for first-time DUI

offenders. Does anyone else know of one?

>

>

>

> >To: <12-step-freeegroups>

> >From: PITNews1@a...

> >Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 14:48:23 EDT

> >Reply-To: 12-step-freeegroups

> >Subject: re: LSR in Pittsburgh

>

> >

> >Rita's notion of being " an agent of the state " hurts. The state

will do what it's gonna do. I would hope to be " an agent of the

recoverer " (or whatever one would be called) in minimizing the harm

caused by the state.

> >

> >Remember, too, that the state is not penalizing drinking or

drugging -- it is penalizing (at least in Pennsylvania) driving while

impaired.

> >

>

> -------------------

>

> With all due respect, Bill, that's exactly why coercion into

ANY kind of " help " for alcoholism is wrong and should be vigorously

and visibly opposed.

>

> The vast majority (2/3, according to one study) of people

arrested for DUI aren't even alcoholics, and have no reason to be

pursuing a course of total lifetime abstinence. How dare any judge,

without even ordering an expert evaluation, decide that someone is

" alcoholic " and order them to attend LSR or any other

abstinence-oriented program which first of all is supposed to be

completely voluntary, including how often to attend (not externally

mandated 3 times a week for 3 months!) and second of all is intended

for people who have a very serious alcohol dependency that has

negatively impacted every area of their life?

>

> It is infantilizing to order " help " for adults who don't need

it.

>

> And do you really want LSR to be thought of as a " punishment " ?

>

> You're absolutely right that the wrong in DUI is the DRIVING,

not the drinking. So the courts should be addressing that! More and

more states and counties are utilizing a combination of stiff fines

and installation of ignition-interlock Breathalyzers which directly

prevent driving while impaired by alcohol (paid for by the person

convicted of the DUI) for the entire probationary period -- usually a

year or two. This approach has been proven repeatedly to reduce

recidivism by a very significant margin. " Treatment " alone, whether

in the form of AA or secular counseling, just has not produced

results. The only possible conclusion to be drawn is that the

mandated counseling/recovery meetings are imposed for political

reasons -- so they can say, " We're so enlightened, we don't punish

people for their disease over which they are powerless, we help

them!! " Very paternalistic! And of course, those coerced-meeting

people who have no repeat of the misbehavior, but wouldn't h!

> ave anyway (as they really didn't have an alcohol disorder) are

counted as success statistics, to further stroke the egos of the

people doing the coercing.

>

> Why be part of such a system?

>

> ~Rita

>

>

>

>

> ------------------------------------------------------------

> --== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--

> Before you buy.

[Guest guest]

At 11:40 PM 10/15/00 +0000, you wrote:

>I don't know of any state that does require AA for first-time DUI

>offenders. Does anyone else know of one?

Ohio and Massachusetts both do. Massachusetts will allow you

to substitute another group, but you have to do the pushing. You're

simply told to attend " AA meetings, " and you have to take the

initiative to substitute something else. In both cases, the requirement

is part of a state-run program which is not advertised as being

officially AA. The meetings are incorporated into the programs,

and in fact the programs themselves are pretty much just more

of the " all AA, all the time " channel we all know and loathe.

I don't know about any other states.

[Guest guest]

" all AA, all the time " hehe.

Tonight, just in time for Halloween, on the all AA network we're featuring

the AA classic horror story " The Rewms " Watch one man's descent into

depression and madness in his never ending struggle with the disease.

> -----Original Message-----

> From:

In both cases, the requirement

> is part of a state-run program which is not advertised as being

> officially AA. The meetings are incorporated into the programs,

> and in fact the programs themselves are pretty much just more

> of the channel we all know and loathe.

>

> I don't know about any other states.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Last I knew, Ohio did not. Instead it requires a three day education

program, little of which is devoted to AA. (Of course this may vary

according to county.) How new or old is your information? What is

the source, and what county was involved?

> >I don't know of any state that does require AA for first-time DUI

> >offenders. Does anyone else know of one?

>

> Ohio and Massachusetts both do. Massachusetts will allow you

> to substitute another group, but you have to do the pushing. You're

> simply told to attend " AA meetings, " and you have to take the

> initiative to substitute something else. In both cases, the

requirement

> is part of a state-run program which is not advertised as being

> officially AA. The meetings are incorporated into the programs,

> and in fact the programs themselves are pretty much just more

> of the " all AA, all the time " channel we all know and loathe.

>

> I don't know about any other states.

>

>

[Guest guest]

Yay and good luck! Sounds like you're making a good deal of progress!

PITNews1@... wrote:

> Hi all ...

>

> LSR in Pittsburgh went very well last night. We had three participants and

> expect a few more next week. Our meeting time is 7 to 8 p.m. Wednesday and

> we're smack in the heart of the university-medical center district.

>

> We've agreed to set this up as an after-work sort of deal and opted for the

> one-hour schedule to keep things brisk & upbeat, so the meeting has a " just

> another part of the day " feeling. Additionally, we agreed the Wednesday night

> scheduling is ideal -- a middle-of-the-week boost for other activities we're

> all pursuing.

>

> On a larger scale, the fact of the meeting actually occurring makes it

> possible to unleash an aggressive publicity & name-recognition campaign here

> in a city of 1.7 million people where the concept of " secular " recovery is

> virtually unknown.

>

> This means (1) I'll be contacting medical editors of major media to introduce

> the concept of LSR, and (2) be meeting with medical directors of principal

> mental health facilities here to gain their understanding and/or endorsement

> and attempt to get our meeting listed at their outpatient facilities as an

> official aftercare resource. Currently in Pittsburgh, all this activity goes

> by default to AA/NA.

>

> An eventual third phase will be contacting Adult Probation services to get

> our meeting approved as a recognized rehabilitation activity for the

> substantial court-ordered DUI population.

>

> I apologize to all my invisible friends for having taken so long to make this

> meeting happen. But at least we're under way, at last, and will be available

> for the very stressful holiday season that holds such misery for those in the

> drinking-using life.

>

> Thoughts? Comments?

>

> Best wishes - Bill (in Pittsburgh)

[Guest guest]

At 01:51 AM 10/17/00 +0000, you wrote:

>Last I knew, Ohio did not. Instead it requires a three day education

>program, little of which is devoted to AA. (Of course this may vary

>according to county.) How new or old is your information? What is

>the source, and what county was involved?

It's pretty darn old. I don't remember exactly, but it was more than

a decade. I assumed they would only have gotten worse since then.

If they've cut it out, I'm glad.

I did the 3-day program in Athens County. Most of it was AA

stuff. Of course this could vary a lot according to the wishes

of the people putting on the program.

They were pretty light on the 12 steps. I guess they didn't want

to scare people away with the religious angle. But they hammered

" disease, disease, disease " constantly and preached joining

AA as the only way to arrest the alleged disease. There was one

in-house AA meeting, and also a lecture from a visiting stepper.

Perhaps only one actual meeting doesn't count as being

mandated to attend meetings. Massachusetts requires " only "

two for a first offense, but also has a lot of AA propaganda in

its first offender program.

[Guest guest]

I'm inclined to believe that anything with a generic label such as a

" class " is some condensed regurgitation of the steps. Maybe not

always, but given attitudes toward drug use in the US it's

unrealistic

to expect that any health education regarding chemical addiction and

dependence wouldn't contain at least a nod in the direction of the

steps in some way, shape or form. It's important to me that mild

coercion be recognized as coercion. I don't think it should be

necessary for a person to face an ultimatum, such as losing their job

or being sent to jail, for it to be coercion. Because it wasn't like

that for me, but it damned sure wasn't voluntary.

judith

> >Last I knew, Ohio did not. Instead it requires a three day

education

> >program, little of which is devoted to AA. (Of course this may

vary

> >according to county.) How new or old is your information? What is

> >the source, and what county was involved?

>

> It's pretty darn old. I don't remember exactly, but it was more

than

> a decade. I assumed they would only have gotten worse since then.

> If they've cut it out, I'm glad.

>

> I did the 3-day program in Athens County. Most of it was AA

> stuff. Of course this could vary a lot according to the wishes

> of the people putting on the program.

>

> They were pretty light on the 12 steps. I guess they didn't want

> to scare people away with the religious angle. But they hammered

> " disease, disease, disease " constantly and preached joining

> AA as the only way to arrest the alleged disease. There was one

> in-house AA meeting, and also a lecture from a visiting stepper.

>

> Perhaps only one actual meeting doesn't count as being

> mandated to attend meetings. Massachusetts requires " only "

> two for a first offense, but also has a lot of AA propaganda in

> its first offender program.

>

>