Re: good artical

[Guest guest]

hey all,

i just checked out http://www.askjeeves.com for first time. I asked; "

is a.a. a cult? " a got some interesting links in return. here is one

artical it found.

dave

ALCOHOLICS CAN BE CURED--DESPITE A.A.  By Dr. Arthur H. Cain

An expert charges that Alcoholics anonymous has become a dogmatic

cult that blocks medical progress and hampers many members' lives.

It is time we made a thorough investigation of Alcoholics Anonymous

in

the interest of our public health. A.A. is identified in the public

mind

as a God-fearing fellowship of 350,000 " arrested alcoholics " who keep

one another sober and rescue others from the horrors of alcoholism.

Unfortunately, A.A. has become a dogmatic cult whose chapters too

often

turn sobriety into slavery to A.A. Because of its narrow outlook,

Alcoholics Anonymous prevents thousands from ever being cured.

Moreover

A.A has retarded scientific research into one of America's most

serious

health problems.

My own experience with A.A. began in 1947. As a psychologist and

investigator into the causes and cure of uncontrolled drinking, I

have

attended about 500 A.A. meetings in over 40 states and a dozen

foreign

countries. At first I was tremendously impressed with A.A.'s

altruistic

efforts in alcoholics' behalf. Its members would perform prodigies of

selfless service, no matter what the hour by meeting the helpless and

sodden in hospitals, flophouses and homes, and offering their

sympathy,

a helping hand, and their own example that temptation could be

withstood. At the weekly meetings, which all A.A. members attended,

there was a true sense of humility and a devout belief in God (We

" came

to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us to

sanity " ) and the fellowship of man--the original tenets of A.A. New

members were given the freedom to question A.A.'s guiding principles

codified in the Twelve Traditions and the Twelve Steps of Recovery. '

'Over the years a disturbing change began to take place. As an

increasing number of alcoholics joined A.A. chapters many turned out

to

be misfits who had rejected Christianity, Judaism or the Kiwanis

Club.

Dogmatic and opinionated in their nonbeliefs, they found in A.A. an

instrument for a new kind of bigotry. Their only meaning in life was

that they had heroically become " arrested " alcoholics. Arrogant

egoists,

they soon dominated many of A.A.'s 10,000 chapters. Weekly meetings,

once spontaneous and exciting, became formalized and ritualistic.

Anyone

who questioned A.A.'s principles or even expressed curiosity was

handed

the slogan, Utilize, Don't Analyze, and told to sit down. The desire

to

help others degenerated. As one disheartened former A.A. member told

me,

" I felt nobody cared what happened to W. I felt they were just

interested in another alcoholic who would become another notch in

their

belts. I felt as if I was being pressed into serving their cause and

building up their oligarchy. "

With this growing dogmatism came a Dark Ages attitude toward any

scientist who might differ with official A.A. doctrine. According to

the

A.A. litany, alcoholism is a physical disease which can never be

cured:

" Once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic. " The corollary is: " A

reformed

alcoholic must live A.A. from day to day and never leave A.A. "

Actually, there is no scientific evidence that alcoholism is an

incurable, physical disease. According to current evidence, the

origin

of uncontrolled drinking is psychological. A person drinks to ease

anxiety, depression, boredom, guilt, timidity, inarticulateness. An

alcoholic learns to become one; he is not born that way. This means

that

many alcoholics can return to normal drinking without fear of ending

up

on Skid Row. Over the past 17 years I have treated more than 50

alcoholics who no longer need to attend meetings or receive

treatment.

Most important, over 20 of my patients have learned to drink

normally,

to use alcohol as a beverage, not a psychological crutch.

Yet when scientists have reported similar findings, A.A. members have

often set out to discredit them. In 1957 Doctors Melvin L. Selzer and

Holloway of the University of Michigan came up with the then

startling report that 13 confirmed alcoholics had become social

drinkers. Because of the pressure of an influential A.A. member, the

state agency that provided the funds for the study virtually ordered

the

two scientists to omit what it called these " embarrassing " findings.

Doctor Selzer published his findings anyway.

In 1962 Dr. D.L. Davies, after a study at Maudsley Hospital in

London,

declared that seven men who had been alcoholics were able to drink

normally after treatment, some had been drinking without problems for

as

long as 11 years. Doctor Davies concluded that 'the generally

accepted

view that no alcohol addict can ever again drink normally should be

modified. " Some A.A. members branded the scientist's report " immoral,

because it might cause some members to drink. "

Dr. E. M. Jellinek, a cofounder of the Yale School of Alcohol Studies

and a dean of researchers in the field of alcoholism until his death

in

1963, was drawing on his own experience when he declared: " . . .

Alcoholics Anonymous have naturally created the picture of alcoholism

in

their own image . . . and there is every reason why the student of

alcoholism should emancipate himself from accepting this

exclusiveness

as propounded by A.A. "

Not only has A.A. interfered with scientific investigations, it has

prevented medical and psychological treatment which runs counter to

its

own theories. At one New York City hospital, for instance, the

physicians preferred using paraldehyde to treat acute intoxication.

But

then A.A. members implied that they would stop referring patients

there

if paraldehyde was used. The doctors were persuaded to switch to

another

drug, chloral hydrate. As the physician in charge of the alcoholics'

ward explained, the A.A. non-scientists had discovered that

paraldehyde

was a form of alcohol. Actually, chloral hydrate is the more toxic

drug.

In fact, its indiscriminate use in another New York hospital has left

some patients more intoxicated upon discharge than when they were

admitted.

While A.A. adherents battle scientific inquiry that does not fit

A.A.'s

narrow theories, its chapters often attempt to assume control of

members' lives. Purporting to offer everything needed for human

fulfillment, the fellowship now boasts of a " ladies auxiliary, "

called

Al-Anon, for spouses of members and even a division for members'

children called Alateen. It suggests that the youngsters open their

meetings by reciting this incantation: " We will always be grateful to

Alateen for giving us a Way of Life and a wonderful, healthy program

to

live by and enjoy! " Implied is the distressing theory that there is

no

other way of life for alcoholics except that of A.A.--a life in which

every waking hour is devoted to the struggle for sobriety.

The wife of a Texas member described some unfortunate consequences of

A.A.'s creed that the struggle against alcohol must be the most

important ambition in a member's life. " This must be placed above

wives

or husbands, children homes, or jobs. They must be ready to abandon

these things at any time.... The tragic part is, some of them while

searching for this sobriety and serenity actually do exactly that. "

How

pervasive the obsession with A.A. can become was poignantly

demonstrated

by a patient who had come to me because of worries about her A.A.

husband. He had proposed that they move their bed into the A.A.

clubhouse so they might be " avail able 24 hours a day just in case an

alcoholic wandered in. "

For many members, of course, staying sober is a fierce challenge

daily.

But under the A.A. program, the lives of many are so sterile that

their

growth as human beings is hindered. Taught to rely or slogans and

compulsive A.A. routine, some are unable to face the fact that they

are

alcoholics because they are psychologically sick. It is for this

reason

that many A.A. members never recover.

A New Hampshire novelist and former A.A. member, who has been

continuously sober for eight years, described this human waste when

he

wrote me- " I have met members who are actually afraid to think. They

have made a high fence of A.A., which shuts them out from all

pleasurable and vital aspects of life. "

Behind the A.A. fence the original principle that alcoholics must be

humble before God has been turned into the dictum that alcoholics are

God's chosen people. This theme is preached in meetings and through

books and pamphlets. A typical illustration is a booklet titled.

" Around

the Clock With A.A., " published recently by an A.A. group in

California.

One passage declares: " God in His wisdom selected this group of men

and

women to be the purveyors of His goodness.... He went right to the

drunkard, the so-called weakling of the world. Well might He have

said

to us: 'Unto your weak and feeble hands I have entrusted- power

beyond

estimate. To you has been given that which has been denied the most

learned of your fellows. Not to scientists or statesmen, not to wives

or

mothers, not even to my priests or ministers have I given this gift

of

helping other alcoholics which I entrust to you. " ' Such idolatry

causes

the believer to see himself as all-knowing, and turns the missionary

into the zealot.

A.A.'s creeds not only infect its own members but pervade public

education. Most of what we hear or read about alcoholism is inspired

by

A.A. adherents spouting A.A. dogmas. City, state and private agencies

frequently fill all key posts with A.A. members. One western state

actually requires that personnel assigned to its alcoholism program

be

A.A. members for at least two years. No professional experience is

needed. The A.A. philosophy also dominates the National Council on

Alcoholism, the only nationwide public-information agency on

alcoholism.

N.C.A., which is supported by public donations, has over 60

affiliated

information committees scattered throughout the country. Although

both

N.C.A. and A.A. deny that they are officially connected, many members

of

N.C.A.'s staff and some directors are A.A. members. A.A. members

serve

as directors in eight out of ten N.C.A. information centers in the

largest cities in the United States.

Thus, it is not surprising that N.C.A. continues to parrot the A.A.

line

that alcoholism is a " progressive disease for which there is no known

cure, but which can only be arrested. " Further, N.C.A. in a series of

radio and TV commercials actually stated that the American Medical

Association had declared alcoholism to be a disease, although the

A.M.A.

has restricted itself to general statements that the alcoholic is

" sick. " Time and again, I have heard public figures recite

A.A.-N.C.A.

myths and propaganda as if they were gospel.

I once heard Arthur Flemming, former Secretary of Health, Education

and

Welfare, read verbatim a pronouncement on alcoholism which I knew had

been prepared a year earlier by N.C.A.'s public-relations firm.

Flemming

offered the now familiar " statistic " that there are five million

alcoholics in the United States. This figure is based on a study

Doctor

Jellinek of Yale conducted 18 years ago in a small community; he

thought

he had found that three percent of the population were alcoholics.

N.C.A. applied this percentage to the whole nation. Doctor Jellinek,

a

great physiologist but no statistician, repudiated his own formula in

1956. The five-million figure is only a guess, for- no scientific

count

of alcoholics has ever been made.

While N.C.A. issues well-intended but sometimes questionable facts

and

theories, A.A. officials, when pressed, often hide behind the famous

Tenth Tradition, which states that " Alcoholics Anonymous has no

opinion

on outside issues, hence the A.A. name ought never be drawn into

public

controversy. " This device enables members of A.A. to make outrageous

assertions which A.A.'s head quarters promptly disavows when

challenged.

" Many people I have tried to help, " said one Chicago member, 'have

abandoned the program just because they couldn't take the ex cathedra

homilies on drugs, alcohol, psychiatry, medicine, sociology, biology,

to

name a few subjects on which they speak with authority. "

Much of A.A.'s failure can be blamed, on a lack of forward-looking,

constructive leadership. Writer Jerome Ellison recently spent several

months as a paid consultant to A.A. evaluating the fellowship's

publications and activities. At national headquarters in New York

City,

Ellison declared, committee politics took up half the working day,

and

gossip was venomous. Everybody was an expert, Ellison went on, " with

a

cluster of ideas closed to amendment. " He related how one member had

submitted to the A.A. monthly bulletin an article which showed that

nearly all southern and a great many northern A.A. chapters were

racially segregated, and that A.A. had failed to keep pace with the

growing, problem of Negro alcoholism. The article was turned down on

the

ground that it " might disrupt A.A. unity. "

Ellison's most damning indictment concerned the rule made by A.A.'s

nonalcoholic board of trustees that no change can be made in A.A.'s

theories on, alcoholism even though they are nearly a quarter of a

century old. " Despite the fact that the rank and file teems with

exciting, relevant, informed and up-to-the-minute experience, "

Ellison

declared, " none of it is permitted to appear in book form. To publish

such literature, it is felt, would be to risk heresy. "

Needless to say, I do not suggest that A.A. be abolished or that a

single member quit. That A.A. helps many thousands stay sober is

obvious. But Alcoholics Anonymous should return to its original

purpose

of being a much-needed first-aid station. The " arrest " of

uncontrolled

drinking is the essential first step in becoming a recovered or cured

alcoholic. During this critical period, the alcoholic needs the

sympathy

and understanding that only another alcoholic can give. But after

three

months or so, when the shakes have subsided and the cobwebs are

beginning to clear, the recovering alcoholic should go ahead. He

should

not be taught that he must remain forever crippled and bound by the

paralyzing concept " Once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic. " It is at

this point that the patient needs a different kind of understanding:

an

objective, dispassionate, clinical understanding that physicians,

psychologists and pastoral counselors, not A.A. members, are trained

to

give. Only after he has undergone a rigorous and lengthy revision of

his

personality should he attempt to drink normally again, and then only

if

he desires to do so.

After all, sobriety in itself is not a way of life. It is simply the

absence of intoxication. It is what one does with his sobriety and

his

life that is important.

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

[Guest guest]

Dear Kayleigh (please notice my sudden politeness)

Your husbands program is in variance with the scapegoat paradigm. Everybody

has ( unless they are equally dull each day ) ups and downs connected with

work or life.

If somebody finds anything in your personal fluids they will not focus

on your work or your life, but on the chemical findings.

Sometimes they will find someone worthy sacrificing, but the loss of

the valuable member will be overshadowed by the 'positive' effect on the

others - making their compliance more in line with company standards.

As a former maoist I see maoist techniques of mind control in this policy.

Find a goat and get free - for a while.

Bjørn.

(ups!? I'm not getting to political?)

Kayleigh S wrote:

Dear Pete and group:

In my state it is the law that treatment programs must have abstinence as their goal.

I do not see how Cliff makes the logical leap from assuming abstinence is the goal to assuming that that means mandated AA (if I am reading him correctly. I assume he refers to the constitutionally mandated separation of church and state, since he goes on to say that the Supreme Court can remedy the situation). After all, other treatment programs (RR, SOS) promote abstinence.

I believe the authorities here want treatment programs so that offenders can be monitored -- it's expensive and possibly illegal for companies to do that themselves, but they seem to believe it's necessary.

BTW, my husband's company has a mandatory drug testing program, which has been in place for at least 10 years, though he can't recall exactly how long. Everyone is required to be tested, no matter how high or low their position, and they have a computer driven random lottery to determine who gets tested on any given day or week. In all that time they have only found five people with an illicit drug problem. Cost-effective? I think not.

---

Kayleigh

Zz

zZ

|\ z _,,,---,,_

/,`.-'`' _ ;-;;,_

|,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'-'

'---''(_/--' `-'\_)

>and another one:

> Alcoholics Anonymous: A Religion In Denial

> by Cliff

>

<snip>

>But the authorities continue to mandate help other than self-help to thousands across America. To this day, self-help is not an

>option. This leads me to wonder if the authorities have abstinence as a goal, rather than simply herding them in "the system."

>

>The U.S. Supreme Court may soon end this travesty. Let's hope!

>

>Cliff

>

>

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

>!! FREE !! DOWNLOAD NOW !!

>Animated Interactive Cartoon Character for Windows.

>http://clickhere./click/242

>

>

>

>eGroups.com home: /group/12-step-free

> - Simplifying group communications

>

>

>

>

>

-----== Sent via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==-----

http://www.dejanews.com/ Easy access to 50,000+ discussion forums

Click

Here!

eGroups.com home: /group/12-step-free

www. - Simplifying

group communications

eGroups.com home: /group/12-step-free

www. - Simplifying group communications

[Guest guest]

---

>Dear Pete and group:

>

>In my state it is the law that treatment programs must have abstinence as their

goal.

>

>I do not see how Cliff makes the logical leap from assuming abstinence

is the goal to assuming that that means mandated AA (if I am reading him

correctly. I assume he refers to the constitutionally mandated separation of

church and state, since he goes on to say that the Supreme Court can remedy the

situation). After all, other treatment programs (RR, SOS) promote abstinence.

>

>I believe the authorities here want treatment programs so that offenders can be

monitored -- it's expensive and possibly illegal for companies to do that

themselves, but they seem to believe it's necessary.

>

(snip)

Hi Kayleigh,

I don't think you're reading Cliff correctly. His point is that

abstinence can be achieved, and body fluid testing can be done to ascertain it,

without " treatment. " Rational Recovery does not refer to itself or consider

itself a " treatment. "

Part of my company's drug/alcohol policy (and I understand this is quite

standard in all mandated " treatment " programs) is that the errant employee not

only have negative d/a tests, but be assessed for " treatment compliance. " Now,

what on earth does this mean? If a job designated " safety-sensitive " has an

abstinence requirement, and an employee violates this, but then becomes

abstinent (and proves it by repeated negative tests), he/she can still be

considered " non-compliant " (and therefore " unfit for duty " ) SIMPLY BECAUSE

HE/SHE DISAGREES WITH THE " DISEASE CONCEPT " OR THE NEED FOR RECOVERY GROUP

ATTENDANCE. Where RR differs from most addiction programs is that they state

categorically that stopping drinking/drugging is the end of the story, and that

presenting the discontinuance of an unhealthy behavior as such an arduous

process as to require months of " treatment " followed by a lifetime of vigilance

(and meetings where one " works on recovery " ) is a ridiculous hoax.

There are currently contract negotiations going on between my agency and

the Transport Workers Union. I have presented a " radical " idea for the new

contract to the union biggies, that persons who test " positive " on the

federally-required d/a tests be put into a probationary status where they are

tested far more frequently than the norm, and be given a list of possible

programs they can utilize privately if they wish, BUT NOT BE FORCED INTO ANY

KIND OF TREATMENT OR IDEOLOGY. If their job performance has been satisfactory,

there is no reason why they shouldn't be working while demonstrating abstinence

in the frequent-testing scheme. (BTW it's already on the books that a second

positive results in a permanent demotion to a non-safety-sensitive position, and

a third positive results in termination.) They thought I was crazy at first --

" But most people 'need' treatment in order to stop! " I have been patiently and

tirelessly educating them as to the truth, which is that any individual can get

lengthy, intensive treatment if he or she wishes, but the vast majority of

people who were " naughty " need no such thing to avoid recurrence.

~Rita

-----== Sent via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==-----

http://www.dejanews.com/ Easy access to 50,000+ discussion forums

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

eGroups.com home: /group/12-step-free

- Simplifying group communications

[Guest guest]

---

>Hi Kayleigh

>

>Which State are you in? This position is absurd - it means

>that basically a patient/client can never be assisted when

>referring to drinking too much without requiring that they

>stop altogether.

>

Hi Pete,

I agree wholeheartedly that moderated drinking, or " healthy drinking " if

you will, is and ought to be an acceptable goal. But realize that anyone who is

subject to d/a testing and penalties for coming up " positive " is not someone who

has gone to a therapist to ask assistance in reducing drinking, or reducing

anxiety/stress, etc.; it is someone who has a job which requires on-the-job

abstinence and negative readings. If you see my previous post on this thread,

you'll note my point (which I know to be the position of Rational Recovery) that

" abstinence " (here referring to having drug and alcohol-free body fluids while

on duty, verified by testing) should be the ONLY goal of any so-called

" treatment " , and (who is I believe a RR spokesperson) makes the point

that very often, " treatment " extends far beyond the point where that goal is

reached, because of the mythology that " recovery " means something much more than

abstinence (whether in required situations or complete) and is something that

needs to be " worked on " for a lifetime.

I have been quite open to friends, co-workers, and listmembers here that I

personally do drink moderately and non-problematically. However, I would be

immediately put back into " treatment " if I stated this to the EAP at a

" followup " session. The fact that I have over 120 " negative " tests on record

justifies my calling myself " abstinent " for their purposes, and bolsters my

credibility when I campaign for reform of their loony " compliance " requirements.

>

>I think means that the goal of the authorities

>appears to be not to produce non-drinkers as to recruit ppl

>into the 12-step treatment system.

>

Rational Recovery does not advocate recovery group involvement of any kind,

12-step or not. I don't cotton to their " total abstinence forever " credo, but

their ideas are easily modified for those who have converted from unhealthy

drinking to responsible moderate drinking, without outside help of any kind.

I don't think it would be any more fair for " authorities " to require

attendance at X number of moderation-oriented meetings a week as to require AA

attendance, even though Moderation Management is certainly an excellent program

for those who desire it.

~Rita

-----== Sent via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==-----

http://www.dejanews.com/ Easy access to 50,000+ discussion forums

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

eGroups.com home: /group/12-step-free

- Simplifying group communications