Guest guest Posted February 6, 2001 Report Share Posted February 6, 2001 > RR no longer holds meetings. They stopped them about two years ago. Some people may still be holding some sort of meeting, but not with the approval of RR. > >RR holds NO meetings. This discussion is centered around RR's position that > >groups are useless (or even harmful). Where did you get this data about " RR > >meetings " ? > > From their web site. I just tried to go there, to quote from the web site, > but it wouldn't load and froze up my computer. I tried 3 times and it kept > freezing my computer, so I can't access the web site. But RR meetings in > San are held Wednesdays at 6 PM. Yes, they're meetings to learn > about RR and learn AVRT, but they're meetings nonetheless. > > >Very few people " choose " AA in any manner. Add up the percentage who are > >coerced by courts or family interventions. > > Which is 50% or less of those in attendance. > > >Numeric profiles of various groups mean very little. As the numbers of AA > >groups expand in number, it is safe to conclude that addiction is simply > >becoming more of a problem, and statistics seem to support this. > > Why do you say this? I don't believe incest is any more common than it was > 100 years ago; in fact, I belive it's actually *less* common. But it's more > often reported. Spousal abuse is less common today than it was 150 years > ago (though it's still too darned common), but it's reported more often > today. 150 years ago, it was not a crime to beat your wife. In fact, it > still wasn't a crime in many states until the 1970s, and there were no > places for abused women to go--I believe the first shelters opened up in > the late 60's or early '70s. It was almost never prosecuted. Police > returned women to their homes, to the custody of their husbands who had > just beat them up. Churches told women that a good wife takes whatever her > husband gives her, and if she was a good wife, her husband wouldn't beat > her (some churches still send this message--I remember one woman whose > husband beat her with a baseball bat and her minister said it was because > she wasn't a good enough wife.) Men had the right to rape their wives in a > number of states (Oklahoma and New Mexico among them) up until at least > 1987, and perhaps still do today. Spousal rape used to never be reported, > because it was not considered a crime, and because a woman would be laughed > away if she complained about her husband demanding and forcing sex from > him. Just because it's more often reported today, does not mean it's more > common. So more people recognize they have an alcohol problem now than they > did 50 years ago--so? So DWI is a crime now, whereas 30 years ago it was an > excuse-- " Oh, he had been drinking. The accident's not his fault. " Plus, > drug use wasn't near as common 50 years ago as it is today. My dad, who > fought in the Korean war, never saw drugs, never knew anyone who did drugs > (he might have known someone who smoked pot, but only as someone to stay > away from.) And my dad was no saint. Drug use just wasn't that common. > Alcohol use, however, was. Just because there are more people seeking help > for a problem today, does not mean that the problem is more common. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 6, 2001 Report Share Posted February 6, 2001 At 01:38 AM 2/6/01 -0600, you wrote: > >Numeric profiles of various groups mean very little. As the numbers of AA > >groups expand in number, it is safe to conclude that addiction is simply > >becoming more of a problem, and statistics seem to support this. > >Why do you say this? Disease dogma holds that 1.) 10% of the population suffers from the disease of alcoholism. 2.) This has always been true, but it used to be more hidden. 3.) Alcoholism inevitably leads to " jails, institutions, and death " without AA. The logical conclusion from these beliefs is that one person in ten died a drunkard's death before AA appeared to rescue civilization. Since this conclusion is patently absurd, though, it makes more sense to question the premises. Have addiction rates really remained constantly high, with such dire consequences? The more common-sense view is that, while people have always consumed alcohol, the phenomenon of widespread addiction is relatively recent. Plus, >drug use wasn't near as common 50 years ago as it is today. My dad, who >fought in the Korean war, never saw drugs, never knew anyone who did drugs > (he might have known someone who smoked pot, but only as someone to stay >away from.) And my dad was no saint. Drug use just wasn't that common. Writing about his young years in the 1920's, Heinlein had this to say: " My teens were in the Torrid Twenties, and exactly the same things went on then as now . . . but were kept under cover. When I was a freshman in college, the nearest connection for marijuana was a drugstore a hundred yards off campus; for H or C it was necessary to walk another block. " Drug use has always been common, with greater or lesser degrees of concealment. It's drug *addiction* which has skyrocketed, much as with alcohol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 6, 2001 Report Share Posted February 6, 2001 At 01:38 AM 2/6/01 -0600, you wrote: > >Numeric profiles of various groups mean very little. As the numbers of AA > >groups expand in number, it is safe to conclude that addiction is simply > >becoming more of a problem, and statistics seem to support this. > >Why do you say this? Disease dogma holds that 1.) 10% of the population suffers from the disease of alcoholism. 2.) This has always been true, but it used to be more hidden. 3.) Alcoholism inevitably leads to " jails, institutions, and death " without AA. The logical conclusion from these beliefs is that one person in ten died a drunkard's death before AA appeared to rescue civilization. Since this conclusion is patently absurd, though, it makes more sense to question the premises. Have addiction rates really remained constantly high, with such dire consequences? The more common-sense view is that, while people have always consumed alcohol, the phenomenon of widespread addiction is relatively recent. Plus, >drug use wasn't near as common 50 years ago as it is today. My dad, who >fought in the Korean war, never saw drugs, never knew anyone who did drugs > (he might have known someone who smoked pot, but only as someone to stay >away from.) And my dad was no saint. Drug use just wasn't that common. Writing about his young years in the 1920's, Heinlein had this to say: " My teens were in the Torrid Twenties, and exactly the same things went on then as now . . . but were kept under cover. When I was a freshman in college, the nearest connection for marijuana was a drugstore a hundred yards off campus; for H or C it was necessary to walk another block. " Drug use has always been common, with greater or lesser degrees of concealment. It's drug *addiction* which has skyrocketed, much as with alcohol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 6, 2001 Report Share Posted February 6, 2001 When I first read the original comments I thought it was a function of the diagnostic criteria changing which leads to the increase in the diagnosis. > Re: Re: RR/AA > > >At 01:38 AM 2/6/01 -0600, you wrote: >> >Numeric profiles of various groups mean very little. As the >numbers of AA >> >groups expand in number, it is safe to conclude that addiction is simply >> >becoming more of a problem, and statistics seem to support this. >> > >Since this conclusion is patently absurd, though, it makes more >sense to question the premises. Have addiction rates really >remained constantly high, with such dire consequences? The >more common-sense view is that, while people have always >consumed alcohol, the phenomenon of widespread addiction >is relatively recent. >Plus, > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 6, 2001 Report Share Posted February 6, 2001 When I first read the original comments I thought it was a function of the diagnostic criteria changing which leads to the increase in the diagnosis. > Re: Re: RR/AA > > >At 01:38 AM 2/6/01 -0600, you wrote: >> >Numeric profiles of various groups mean very little. As the >numbers of AA >> >groups expand in number, it is safe to conclude that addiction is simply >> >becoming more of a problem, and statistics seem to support this. >> > >Since this conclusion is patently absurd, though, it makes more >sense to question the premises. Have addiction rates really >remained constantly high, with such dire consequences? The >more common-sense view is that, while people have always >consumed alcohol, the phenomenon of widespread addiction >is relatively recent. >Plus, > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 6, 2001 Report Share Posted February 6, 2001 When I first read the original comments I thought it was a function of the diagnostic criteria changing which leads to the increase in the diagnosis. > Re: Re: RR/AA > > >At 01:38 AM 2/6/01 -0600, you wrote: >> >Numeric profiles of various groups mean very little. As the >numbers of AA >> >groups expand in number, it is safe to conclude that addiction is simply >> >becoming more of a problem, and statistics seem to support this. >> > >Since this conclusion is patently absurd, though, it makes more >sense to question the premises. Have addiction rates really >remained constantly high, with such dire consequences? The >more common-sense view is that, while people have always >consumed alcohol, the phenomenon of widespread addiction >is relatively recent. >Plus, > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 6, 2001 Report Share Posted February 6, 2001 Hello, I read RR and was trying to implement it in my life. Well I ended up drinking. I know AA doesnt work for me but I m worried because it seems nothing does. What I dont buy about RR is: nutrition doesnt matter, it doesnt matter what your socio-economic class is (most addicted people are low income level). Im confused, and I hope this question doesnt offend anyone but Im wondering if it is true that some of us are more late stage than others. I mean Ive been drinking on and off for over half of my life and all it has done in the last 9 years is cause me pain. Why would I drink again? Its like I cant stop myself once I feel that intense urge to drink. Im confuseed though because I dont buy the whole AA concept that im just selfish and self-centered. I know better than to drink but why cant I stop? I blackout ive lost my license for 4 years, I almost got kicked out of my apt for turning the music so loud I want to quit but I cant seem to. In the past Ive put myself in inpatient tx centers to dry out. But I need to do this out of institutions or I will never be able to. Have any of the people on here had their lives turned upside down from alcohol? If so how did you stay sober? All suggestion are welcome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 6, 2001 Report Share Posted February 6, 2001 Hello, I read RR and was trying to implement it in my life. Well I ended up drinking. I know AA doesnt work for me but I m worried because it seems nothing does. What I dont buy about RR is: nutrition doesnt matter, it doesnt matter what your socio-economic class is (most addicted people are low income level). Im confused, and I hope this question doesnt offend anyone but Im wondering if it is true that some of us are more late stage than others. I mean Ive been drinking on and off for over half of my life and all it has done in the last 9 years is cause me pain. Why would I drink again? Its like I cant stop myself once I feel that intense urge to drink. Im confuseed though because I dont buy the whole AA concept that im just selfish and self-centered. I know better than to drink but why cant I stop? I blackout ive lost my license for 4 years, I almost got kicked out of my apt for turning the music so loud I want to quit but I cant seem to. In the past Ive put myself in inpatient tx centers to dry out. But I need to do this out of institutions or I will never be able to. Have any of the people on here had their lives turned upside down from alcohol? If so how did you stay sober? All suggestion are welcome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 6, 2001 Report Share Posted February 6, 2001 >>Why do you say this? > >Disease dogma holds that >1.) 10% of the population suffers from the disease of alcoholism. >2.) This has always been true, but it used to be more hidden. >3.) Alcoholism inevitably leads to " jails, institutions, and death " > without AA. > >The logical conclusion from these beliefs is that one person in >ten died a drunkard's death before AA appeared to rescue >civilization. > >Since this conclusion is patently absurd, though, it makes more >sense to question the premises. Have addiction rates really >remained constantly high, with such dire consequences? The >more common-sense view is that, while people have always >consumed alcohol, the phenomenon of widespread addiction >is relatively recent. I believe there is plenty of evidence to show that people have always been addicted. One need only read literature from the 19th, 18th, and 17th centuries. Since we have no empirical data from those years, our evidence has to come from jail records, literature, and historical accounts. Bonney Prince Charlie may well have lost the battle at Culloden due to alcoholism--it is certain that the drinking and partying he did the night before did not help his forces at all. (That they had only broadswords against the English guns, and they had to run through 150 yards or so of dense heather, did not help matters either. But not having recovered from a long march and great partying the day before weakened them all the more.) But historical accounts are replete with tales of drunkenness, in such inopportune times that a non-addicted person would not have allowed himself to get drunk. I don't think alcoholism was 'hidden' at all--certainly in my travels and what I've learned of life in Britain, Germany, Spain, and Mexico (including a class on Latin America from pre-Columbian times to the late 1800s) drunkeness was common. How many people were *addicted*, it's hard to tell--but when the same person is drunk night after night, it's pretty safe to say he's addicted. Do we have a phenonmenon of widespread addiction? I doubt it's any more widespread than in previous centuries. Perhaps more widespread amongst women, as women are able to get out more, and less likely to be stoned to death or drowned for being drunk. (It was a far worse crime for women than for men.) And we have drugs now, which were not nearly so widespread as before. I've seen citations that show that upwards of 50% or more of high school students have smoked pot (especially now, since drugs are easier to get than alcohol is, according to some teens I've talked to.) And while there have always been drugs to some degree, they were not nearly so concentrated--we have cocaine, instead of chewing coca leaves. We have speed, a manufactured drug. And ecstasy, and GHB, and PCP, and LSD. And I hear that marijuana is stronger, the THC more concentrated, than it was 30 years ago. And, I do believe, drugs were simply not as common in the earlier part of this century as they are today. Oh, sure, port cities, especially those on the west coast, could get opium, and there was the occasional marijuana. But my dad, not exactly a virtuous soul in his teenage years, never saw marijuana or any other drug (save alcohol, lots of it.) I've heard the same thing from many other people his age. It may have been obtainable if you went looking for it, but it was not commonplace. I didn't have to seek out marijuana, and I sure didn't seek out whatever drug someone slipped in my drink one time. LSD is a manufactured drug that made its appearance in, what, the late 1950's? Of course, the bit about alcoholism always leading to jails, institutions, and death is patently false. It usually leads to misery. Being with an alcoholic is no fun--take it from someone with experience. I have no desire to live my life with an alcholic, which is why I'm searching so hard for a way that will help my boyfriend shake the addiction. It certainly *can* lead to jail, and even institutions, though that's in a minority of the cases. Many alcoholics die alcoholics. Or they quit a few months before they die, like my boyfriend's stepfather did. But it was too late. The damage was done, and he died a horrible painful death 4 or 5 months later. Would that he would have quit drinking when it would have still have done some good, and before the pattern was set for his son and his stepson, both of whom are addicts, both of whom have been non-functional. (B.'s stepdad, on the other hand, was a successful, highly paid engineer, who kept his alcoholism hidden from his coworkers but not from his family.) When he came to Texas at the age of 24, B. had spent 2 years in jail already due to DUIs. He got his GED in jail after having dropped out of high school, because school got in the way of his drinking. His brother, age 21, dropped out, never got his GED, hasn't held a job for longer than a month or two, is in and out of jail, hasn't had a stable place to live since his dad died and gets thrown out of his friends' houses because of his drug use--all because his addiction is the most important thing in his life. So yeah, alcoholism can lead to jail and even prison. It's not inevitable, however. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 6, 2001 Report Share Posted February 6, 2001 >>Why do you say this? > >Disease dogma holds that >1.) 10% of the population suffers from the disease of alcoholism. >2.) This has always been true, but it used to be more hidden. >3.) Alcoholism inevitably leads to " jails, institutions, and death " > without AA. > >The logical conclusion from these beliefs is that one person in >ten died a drunkard's death before AA appeared to rescue >civilization. > >Since this conclusion is patently absurd, though, it makes more >sense to question the premises. Have addiction rates really >remained constantly high, with such dire consequences? The >more common-sense view is that, while people have always >consumed alcohol, the phenomenon of widespread addiction >is relatively recent. I believe there is plenty of evidence to show that people have always been addicted. One need only read literature from the 19th, 18th, and 17th centuries. Since we have no empirical data from those years, our evidence has to come from jail records, literature, and historical accounts. Bonney Prince Charlie may well have lost the battle at Culloden due to alcoholism--it is certain that the drinking and partying he did the night before did not help his forces at all. (That they had only broadswords against the English guns, and they had to run through 150 yards or so of dense heather, did not help matters either. But not having recovered from a long march and great partying the day before weakened them all the more.) But historical accounts are replete with tales of drunkenness, in such inopportune times that a non-addicted person would not have allowed himself to get drunk. I don't think alcoholism was 'hidden' at all--certainly in my travels and what I've learned of life in Britain, Germany, Spain, and Mexico (including a class on Latin America from pre-Columbian times to the late 1800s) drunkeness was common. How many people were *addicted*, it's hard to tell--but when the same person is drunk night after night, it's pretty safe to say he's addicted. Do we have a phenonmenon of widespread addiction? I doubt it's any more widespread than in previous centuries. Perhaps more widespread amongst women, as women are able to get out more, and less likely to be stoned to death or drowned for being drunk. (It was a far worse crime for women than for men.) And we have drugs now, which were not nearly so widespread as before. I've seen citations that show that upwards of 50% or more of high school students have smoked pot (especially now, since drugs are easier to get than alcohol is, according to some teens I've talked to.) And while there have always been drugs to some degree, they were not nearly so concentrated--we have cocaine, instead of chewing coca leaves. We have speed, a manufactured drug. And ecstasy, and GHB, and PCP, and LSD. And I hear that marijuana is stronger, the THC more concentrated, than it was 30 years ago. And, I do believe, drugs were simply not as common in the earlier part of this century as they are today. Oh, sure, port cities, especially those on the west coast, could get opium, and there was the occasional marijuana. But my dad, not exactly a virtuous soul in his teenage years, never saw marijuana or any other drug (save alcohol, lots of it.) I've heard the same thing from many other people his age. It may have been obtainable if you went looking for it, but it was not commonplace. I didn't have to seek out marijuana, and I sure didn't seek out whatever drug someone slipped in my drink one time. LSD is a manufactured drug that made its appearance in, what, the late 1950's? Of course, the bit about alcoholism always leading to jails, institutions, and death is patently false. It usually leads to misery. Being with an alcoholic is no fun--take it from someone with experience. I have no desire to live my life with an alcholic, which is why I'm searching so hard for a way that will help my boyfriend shake the addiction. It certainly *can* lead to jail, and even institutions, though that's in a minority of the cases. Many alcoholics die alcoholics. Or they quit a few months before they die, like my boyfriend's stepfather did. But it was too late. The damage was done, and he died a horrible painful death 4 or 5 months later. Would that he would have quit drinking when it would have still have done some good, and before the pattern was set for his son and his stepson, both of whom are addicts, both of whom have been non-functional. (B.'s stepdad, on the other hand, was a successful, highly paid engineer, who kept his alcoholism hidden from his coworkers but not from his family.) When he came to Texas at the age of 24, B. had spent 2 years in jail already due to DUIs. He got his GED in jail after having dropped out of high school, because school got in the way of his drinking. His brother, age 21, dropped out, never got his GED, hasn't held a job for longer than a month or two, is in and out of jail, hasn't had a stable place to live since his dad died and gets thrown out of his friends' houses because of his drug use--all because his addiction is the most important thing in his life. So yeah, alcoholism can lead to jail and even prison. It's not inevitable, however. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 6, 2001 Report Share Posted February 6, 2001 >>Why do you say this? > >Disease dogma holds that >1.) 10% of the population suffers from the disease of alcoholism. >2.) This has always been true, but it used to be more hidden. >3.) Alcoholism inevitably leads to " jails, institutions, and death " > without AA. > >The logical conclusion from these beliefs is that one person in >ten died a drunkard's death before AA appeared to rescue >civilization. > >Since this conclusion is patently absurd, though, it makes more >sense to question the premises. Have addiction rates really >remained constantly high, with such dire consequences? The >more common-sense view is that, while people have always >consumed alcohol, the phenomenon of widespread addiction >is relatively recent. I believe there is plenty of evidence to show that people have always been addicted. One need only read literature from the 19th, 18th, and 17th centuries. Since we have no empirical data from those years, our evidence has to come from jail records, literature, and historical accounts. Bonney Prince Charlie may well have lost the battle at Culloden due to alcoholism--it is certain that the drinking and partying he did the night before did not help his forces at all. (That they had only broadswords against the English guns, and they had to run through 150 yards or so of dense heather, did not help matters either. But not having recovered from a long march and great partying the day before weakened them all the more.) But historical accounts are replete with tales of drunkenness, in such inopportune times that a non-addicted person would not have allowed himself to get drunk. I don't think alcoholism was 'hidden' at all--certainly in my travels and what I've learned of life in Britain, Germany, Spain, and Mexico (including a class on Latin America from pre-Columbian times to the late 1800s) drunkeness was common. How many people were *addicted*, it's hard to tell--but when the same person is drunk night after night, it's pretty safe to say he's addicted. Do we have a phenonmenon of widespread addiction? I doubt it's any more widespread than in previous centuries. Perhaps more widespread amongst women, as women are able to get out more, and less likely to be stoned to death or drowned for being drunk. (It was a far worse crime for women than for men.) And we have drugs now, which were not nearly so widespread as before. I've seen citations that show that upwards of 50% or more of high school students have smoked pot (especially now, since drugs are easier to get than alcohol is, according to some teens I've talked to.) And while there have always been drugs to some degree, they were not nearly so concentrated--we have cocaine, instead of chewing coca leaves. We have speed, a manufactured drug. And ecstasy, and GHB, and PCP, and LSD. And I hear that marijuana is stronger, the THC more concentrated, than it was 30 years ago. And, I do believe, drugs were simply not as common in the earlier part of this century as they are today. Oh, sure, port cities, especially those on the west coast, could get opium, and there was the occasional marijuana. But my dad, not exactly a virtuous soul in his teenage years, never saw marijuana or any other drug (save alcohol, lots of it.) I've heard the same thing from many other people his age. It may have been obtainable if you went looking for it, but it was not commonplace. I didn't have to seek out marijuana, and I sure didn't seek out whatever drug someone slipped in my drink one time. LSD is a manufactured drug that made its appearance in, what, the late 1950's? Of course, the bit about alcoholism always leading to jails, institutions, and death is patently false. It usually leads to misery. Being with an alcoholic is no fun--take it from someone with experience. I have no desire to live my life with an alcholic, which is why I'm searching so hard for a way that will help my boyfriend shake the addiction. It certainly *can* lead to jail, and even institutions, though that's in a minority of the cases. Many alcoholics die alcoholics. Or they quit a few months before they die, like my boyfriend's stepfather did. But it was too late. The damage was done, and he died a horrible painful death 4 or 5 months later. Would that he would have quit drinking when it would have still have done some good, and before the pattern was set for his son and his stepson, both of whom are addicts, both of whom have been non-functional. (B.'s stepdad, on the other hand, was a successful, highly paid engineer, who kept his alcoholism hidden from his coworkers but not from his family.) When he came to Texas at the age of 24, B. had spent 2 years in jail already due to DUIs. He got his GED in jail after having dropped out of high school, because school got in the way of his drinking. His brother, age 21, dropped out, never got his GED, hasn't held a job for longer than a month or two, is in and out of jail, hasn't had a stable place to live since his dad died and gets thrown out of his friends' houses because of his drug use--all because his addiction is the most important thing in his life. So yeah, alcoholism can lead to jail and even prison. It's not inevitable, however. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 6, 2001 Report Share Posted February 6, 2001 At 01:04 AM 2/7/01 EST, GrahJAG@... wrote: >Hello, > > I read RR and was trying to implement it in my life. >Well I ended up drinking. I know AA doesnt work for me but I m worried >because it seems nothing does. What I dont buy about RR is: nutrition doesnt >matter, it doesnt matter what your socio-economic class is (most addicted >people are low income level). Oddly I think AA says the same thing. When I was new in AA I heard how it ( " alcoholism " ) affected all races, men and women, etc. - that it was, if I remember right, an " equal opportunity destroyer " . I since learned from elsewhere such as the book " under the influence " that alcohol use and abuse varies widely between different races and cultures. >Im confused, and I hope this question doesnt offend anyone but Im wondering >if it is true that some of us are more late stage than others. It doesn't offend, but the words " late stage " strike me as the usual AA/recovery-speak of labeling and classsifying people. How much time have you spent in treatment centers or AA meetings? They all assume you're going to drink again, and so it too often becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. It may help you to unlearn many of the things you've learned from these places. >Have any of the people on here had their lives turned upside down from >alcohol? If so how did you stay sober? I drank my way through my 20's, and certainly drank enough to be labeled alcoholic by anyone who uses that label. I got sober in AA at age 30, but after two years I wanted to do something more than go to meetings every day and take the steps the rest of my life, and when I tried to do anything else it felt like I was in a straight jacket. I discovered SOS and found it to be much more supportive, with fewer " suggestions " , and almost no guilt trips. I'm not affiliated with SOS anymore, but I do recommend it. There's lots and lots of info on SOS/LSR at <http://www.unhooked.com>. ----- This post (except quoted portions) Copyright 2001, Ben Bradley. http://listen.to/benbradley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 6, 2001 Report Share Posted February 6, 2001 At 01:04 AM 2/7/01 EST, GrahJAG@... wrote: >Hello, > > I read RR and was trying to implement it in my life. >Well I ended up drinking. I know AA doesnt work for me but I m worried >because it seems nothing does. What I dont buy about RR is: nutrition doesnt >matter, it doesnt matter what your socio-economic class is (most addicted >people are low income level). Oddly I think AA says the same thing. When I was new in AA I heard how it ( " alcoholism " ) affected all races, men and women, etc. - that it was, if I remember right, an " equal opportunity destroyer " . I since learned from elsewhere such as the book " under the influence " that alcohol use and abuse varies widely between different races and cultures. >Im confused, and I hope this question doesnt offend anyone but Im wondering >if it is true that some of us are more late stage than others. It doesn't offend, but the words " late stage " strike me as the usual AA/recovery-speak of labeling and classsifying people. How much time have you spent in treatment centers or AA meetings? They all assume you're going to drink again, and so it too often becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. It may help you to unlearn many of the things you've learned from these places. >Have any of the people on here had their lives turned upside down from >alcohol? If so how did you stay sober? I drank my way through my 20's, and certainly drank enough to be labeled alcoholic by anyone who uses that label. I got sober in AA at age 30, but after two years I wanted to do something more than go to meetings every day and take the steps the rest of my life, and when I tried to do anything else it felt like I was in a straight jacket. I discovered SOS and found it to be much more supportive, with fewer " suggestions " , and almost no guilt trips. I'm not affiliated with SOS anymore, but I do recommend it. There's lots and lots of info on SOS/LSR at <http://www.unhooked.com>. ----- This post (except quoted portions) Copyright 2001, Ben Bradley. http://listen.to/benbradley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 6, 2001 Report Share Posted February 6, 2001 At 01:04 AM 2/7/01 EST, GrahJAG@... wrote: >Hello, > > I read RR and was trying to implement it in my life. >Well I ended up drinking. I know AA doesnt work for me but I m worried >because it seems nothing does. What I dont buy about RR is: nutrition doesnt >matter, it doesnt matter what your socio-economic class is (most addicted >people are low income level). Oddly I think AA says the same thing. When I was new in AA I heard how it ( " alcoholism " ) affected all races, men and women, etc. - that it was, if I remember right, an " equal opportunity destroyer " . I since learned from elsewhere such as the book " under the influence " that alcohol use and abuse varies widely between different races and cultures. >Im confused, and I hope this question doesnt offend anyone but Im wondering >if it is true that some of us are more late stage than others. It doesn't offend, but the words " late stage " strike me as the usual AA/recovery-speak of labeling and classsifying people. How much time have you spent in treatment centers or AA meetings? They all assume you're going to drink again, and so it too often becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. It may help you to unlearn many of the things you've learned from these places. >Have any of the people on here had their lives turned upside down from >alcohol? If so how did you stay sober? I drank my way through my 20's, and certainly drank enough to be labeled alcoholic by anyone who uses that label. I got sober in AA at age 30, but after two years I wanted to do something more than go to meetings every day and take the steps the rest of my life, and when I tried to do anything else it felt like I was in a straight jacket. I discovered SOS and found it to be much more supportive, with fewer " suggestions " , and almost no guilt trips. I'm not affiliated with SOS anymore, but I do recommend it. There's lots and lots of info on SOS/LSR at <http://www.unhooked.com>. ----- This post (except quoted portions) Copyright 2001, Ben Bradley. http://listen.to/benbradley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 7, 2001 Report Share Posted February 7, 2001 > Hello, i found when i quit that vitamin b did help me. apparently when you drink, the alcohol damages the the nervous system, the vitamin is supposed to help with that. > Why would I drink again? Its like I cant stop myself once I feel that > intense urge to drink. the alcohol is effecting you physically and mentally. have you manged soberiety for any length of time in past? Im confuseed though because I dont buy the whole AA > concept that im just selfish and self-centered. you shouldn't, its a harmful concept. > Have any of the people on here had their lives turned upside down from > alcohol? If so how did you stay sober? All suggestion are welcome. i was a mess . i quit at 27. i was unemployed and a mess. i hit what was a " rock bottom " for myself. you dont need to hit bottom to quit, but i did. once i stopped, i dedicated myself to improving all the areas of my life the drinking was harming, starting with my physical condition and personal hygiene. this helped improve my self esteem. and when you start taking care of yourself, you believe your worth caring for. once i made that my focus, using again never became an option, simply put, alcohol was no longer attractive, actually it was repulsive to me because i didnt want to intoxicate my brain or put toxins in my body. i also wanted to restore the relationships i had damaged, and that was a strong motivator for me to go forward, the hope that if i got better, so would my relationships. they did. within a few weeks i felt so much better it was amazing. my depression lifted off my mind like a fog and i felt good about myself. the pain went away too. i personally think the most important factor is motivation, wanting something better for yourself, and taking care of yourself, doing what is best for your well being. you can achieve that if you stop drinking. but i know how hard those urges are to fight. i wish i had some good advise for that, other than the vitamin b, (b12 i think) . i know words cannot describe what it is like. i think everyone can get thru that somehow. when i quit, my depression was actually worse than my craving that week, i stayed in my room recovering from a hangover for 3 days. i just gritted my teeth and stayed in bed. i was too depressed to look out the window and kept my room dark and curtains closed. thats not something that i can say is a strategy for quitting, but its the state i was in when i quit. isn't there a drug, anabuse or something newer which help with cravings? can you see a doctor? i hope i helped. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 7, 2001 Report Share Posted February 7, 2001 > Hello, i found when i quit that vitamin b did help me. apparently when you drink, the alcohol damages the the nervous system, the vitamin is supposed to help with that. > Why would I drink again? Its like I cant stop myself once I feel that > intense urge to drink. the alcohol is effecting you physically and mentally. have you manged soberiety for any length of time in past? Im confuseed though because I dont buy the whole AA > concept that im just selfish and self-centered. you shouldn't, its a harmful concept. > Have any of the people on here had their lives turned upside down from > alcohol? If so how did you stay sober? All suggestion are welcome. i was a mess . i quit at 27. i was unemployed and a mess. i hit what was a " rock bottom " for myself. you dont need to hit bottom to quit, but i did. once i stopped, i dedicated myself to improving all the areas of my life the drinking was harming, starting with my physical condition and personal hygiene. this helped improve my self esteem. and when you start taking care of yourself, you believe your worth caring for. once i made that my focus, using again never became an option, simply put, alcohol was no longer attractive, actually it was repulsive to me because i didnt want to intoxicate my brain or put toxins in my body. i also wanted to restore the relationships i had damaged, and that was a strong motivator for me to go forward, the hope that if i got better, so would my relationships. they did. within a few weeks i felt so much better it was amazing. my depression lifted off my mind like a fog and i felt good about myself. the pain went away too. i personally think the most important factor is motivation, wanting something better for yourself, and taking care of yourself, doing what is best for your well being. you can achieve that if you stop drinking. but i know how hard those urges are to fight. i wish i had some good advise for that, other than the vitamin b, (b12 i think) . i know words cannot describe what it is like. i think everyone can get thru that somehow. when i quit, my depression was actually worse than my craving that week, i stayed in my room recovering from a hangover for 3 days. i just gritted my teeth and stayed in bed. i was too depressed to look out the window and kept my room dark and curtains closed. thats not something that i can say is a strategy for quitting, but its the state i was in when i quit. isn't there a drug, anabuse or something newer which help with cravings? can you see a doctor? i hope i helped. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 7, 2001 Report Share Posted February 7, 2001 > Hello, i found when i quit that vitamin b did help me. apparently when you drink, the alcohol damages the the nervous system, the vitamin is supposed to help with that. > Why would I drink again? Its like I cant stop myself once I feel that > intense urge to drink. the alcohol is effecting you physically and mentally. have you manged soberiety for any length of time in past? Im confuseed though because I dont buy the whole AA > concept that im just selfish and self-centered. you shouldn't, its a harmful concept. > Have any of the people on here had their lives turned upside down from > alcohol? If so how did you stay sober? All suggestion are welcome. i was a mess . i quit at 27. i was unemployed and a mess. i hit what was a " rock bottom " for myself. you dont need to hit bottom to quit, but i did. once i stopped, i dedicated myself to improving all the areas of my life the drinking was harming, starting with my physical condition and personal hygiene. this helped improve my self esteem. and when you start taking care of yourself, you believe your worth caring for. once i made that my focus, using again never became an option, simply put, alcohol was no longer attractive, actually it was repulsive to me because i didnt want to intoxicate my brain or put toxins in my body. i also wanted to restore the relationships i had damaged, and that was a strong motivator for me to go forward, the hope that if i got better, so would my relationships. they did. within a few weeks i felt so much better it was amazing. my depression lifted off my mind like a fog and i felt good about myself. the pain went away too. i personally think the most important factor is motivation, wanting something better for yourself, and taking care of yourself, doing what is best for your well being. you can achieve that if you stop drinking. but i know how hard those urges are to fight. i wish i had some good advise for that, other than the vitamin b, (b12 i think) . i know words cannot describe what it is like. i think everyone can get thru that somehow. when i quit, my depression was actually worse than my craving that week, i stayed in my room recovering from a hangover for 3 days. i just gritted my teeth and stayed in bed. i was too depressed to look out the window and kept my room dark and curtains closed. thats not something that i can say is a strategy for quitting, but its the state i was in when i quit. isn't there a drug, anabuse or something newer which help with cravings? can you see a doctor? i hope i helped. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 7, 2001 Report Share Posted February 7, 2001 What I dont buy about RR is: nutrition >doesnt >>matter, it doesnt matter what your socio-economic class is (most addicted >>people are low income level). > > Oddly I think AA says the same thing. When I was new in AA I heard >how it ( " alcoholism " ) affected all races, men and women, etc. - that >it was, if I remember right, an " equal opportunity destroyer " . I since >learned from elsewhere such as the book " under the influence " that >alcohol use and abuse varies widely between different races and >cultures. Which reinforces my claims that socioeconomic status figures heavily into it. People whose lives are going well are less likely to try to destroy themselves with alcohol than are those whose lives are miserable and show no hope. You will find that most fundamentalist Christians are of lower socioeconomic status (not all, but many, probably most). If one's life is hell, and shows no possibility of improvement, there's a limited number of options. Many people will reach for some sort of opiate. For some, that's religion. For others, that's alcohol or drugs. I still believe that such people need some sort of self-help or support groups. Support groups have proven to be very useful for a great variety of problems. That doesn't mean a lifetime commitment to a support group--but they are very useful as a bridge to learning how to live without drugs or alcohol, or to coping with life's problems. Group therapy is another option, but one that few people have access to. The beauty of AA meetings is that they're free (even the donation asked for is only $1). I believe that there is a real need for support groups for some alcoholics, and programs seeking to help all alcoholics (not just those wealthy enough to pay for counseling themselves, or t hose who have insurance to pay for it) would do well to offer some kind of support group meetings. I got sober in AA >at age 30, but after two years I wanted to do something more than go to >meetings every day and take the steps the rest of my life, and when I >tried to do anything else it felt like I was in a straight jacket. Ben, Could you explain what you mean by it felt like you were in a straight jacket? I would think that after 2 years of sobriety, you wouldn't need constant meetings, certainly not every day. Most alcoholics I know who *have* benefitted from AA stop going after a while, or they attend only rarely, like 2 or 3 times a year (of course we all know the people who've been going to AA regularly for 15 years.) Can you say why you felt you had to go every day, and why you felt you were in a straight jacket if you tried anything else? Dixie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 7, 2001 Report Share Posted February 7, 2001 What I dont buy about RR is: nutrition >doesnt >>matter, it doesnt matter what your socio-economic class is (most addicted >>people are low income level). > > Oddly I think AA says the same thing. When I was new in AA I heard >how it ( " alcoholism " ) affected all races, men and women, etc. - that >it was, if I remember right, an " equal opportunity destroyer " . I since >learned from elsewhere such as the book " under the influence " that >alcohol use and abuse varies widely between different races and >cultures. Which reinforces my claims that socioeconomic status figures heavily into it. People whose lives are going well are less likely to try to destroy themselves with alcohol than are those whose lives are miserable and show no hope. You will find that most fundamentalist Christians are of lower socioeconomic status (not all, but many, probably most). If one's life is hell, and shows no possibility of improvement, there's a limited number of options. Many people will reach for some sort of opiate. For some, that's religion. For others, that's alcohol or drugs. I still believe that such people need some sort of self-help or support groups. Support groups have proven to be very useful for a great variety of problems. That doesn't mean a lifetime commitment to a support group--but they are very useful as a bridge to learning how to live without drugs or alcohol, or to coping with life's problems. Group therapy is another option, but one that few people have access to. The beauty of AA meetings is that they're free (even the donation asked for is only $1). I believe that there is a real need for support groups for some alcoholics, and programs seeking to help all alcoholics (not just those wealthy enough to pay for counseling themselves, or t hose who have insurance to pay for it) would do well to offer some kind of support group meetings. I got sober in AA >at age 30, but after two years I wanted to do something more than go to >meetings every day and take the steps the rest of my life, and when I >tried to do anything else it felt like I was in a straight jacket. Ben, Could you explain what you mean by it felt like you were in a straight jacket? I would think that after 2 years of sobriety, you wouldn't need constant meetings, certainly not every day. Most alcoholics I know who *have* benefitted from AA stop going after a while, or they attend only rarely, like 2 or 3 times a year (of course we all know the people who've been going to AA regularly for 15 years.) Can you say why you felt you had to go every day, and why you felt you were in a straight jacket if you tried anything else? Dixie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 7, 2001 Report Share Posted February 7, 2001 What I dont buy about RR is: nutrition >doesnt >>matter, it doesnt matter what your socio-economic class is (most addicted >>people are low income level). > > Oddly I think AA says the same thing. When I was new in AA I heard >how it ( " alcoholism " ) affected all races, men and women, etc. - that >it was, if I remember right, an " equal opportunity destroyer " . I since >learned from elsewhere such as the book " under the influence " that >alcohol use and abuse varies widely between different races and >cultures. Which reinforces my claims that socioeconomic status figures heavily into it. People whose lives are going well are less likely to try to destroy themselves with alcohol than are those whose lives are miserable and show no hope. You will find that most fundamentalist Christians are of lower socioeconomic status (not all, but many, probably most). If one's life is hell, and shows no possibility of improvement, there's a limited number of options. Many people will reach for some sort of opiate. For some, that's religion. For others, that's alcohol or drugs. I still believe that such people need some sort of self-help or support groups. Support groups have proven to be very useful for a great variety of problems. That doesn't mean a lifetime commitment to a support group--but they are very useful as a bridge to learning how to live without drugs or alcohol, or to coping with life's problems. Group therapy is another option, but one that few people have access to. The beauty of AA meetings is that they're free (even the donation asked for is only $1). I believe that there is a real need for support groups for some alcoholics, and programs seeking to help all alcoholics (not just those wealthy enough to pay for counseling themselves, or t hose who have insurance to pay for it) would do well to offer some kind of support group meetings. I got sober in AA >at age 30, but after two years I wanted to do something more than go to >meetings every day and take the steps the rest of my life, and when I >tried to do anything else it felt like I was in a straight jacket. Ben, Could you explain what you mean by it felt like you were in a straight jacket? I would think that after 2 years of sobriety, you wouldn't need constant meetings, certainly not every day. Most alcoholics I know who *have* benefitted from AA stop going after a while, or they attend only rarely, like 2 or 3 times a year (of course we all know the people who've been going to AA regularly for 15 years.) Can you say why you felt you had to go every day, and why you felt you were in a straight jacket if you tried anything else? Dixie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 7, 2001 Report Share Posted February 7, 2001 > > I read RR and was trying to implement it in my life. > Well I ended up drinking. I know AA doesnt work for me but I m worried > because it seems nothing does. What I dont buy about RR is: nutrition doesnt > matter, > ------------ I agree, it's another of my criticisms of Trimpey -- he has no interest in health or nutrition issues and in fact scorns approaches that are. One book I found quite interesting and helpful was " How to Stop Drinking Without AA " by Jerry Dorsman. It begins with a list of health and emotional questionnaires designed to get you to be more self-aware of your emotional and bodily reactions not only to alcohol (and in different amounts and settings), but reactions to sugar, various foods, etc. Dorsman is a big believer in viewing severely cutting down or quitting drinking as part of a larger continuum of improving health by eating better, exercising, and generally taking better care of your body. And he encourages you to continually note your physical and emotional reactions to various diet and other changes as you make them. Therefore there is no one-size-fits-all, everyone's body reacts differently. > > Why would I drink again? Its like I cant stop myself once I feel that > intense urge to drink. Im confuseed though because I dont buy the whole AA > concept that im just selfish and self-centered. I know better than to drink > but why cant I stop? I blackout ive lost my license for 4 years, I almost > got kicked out of my apt for turning the music so loud I want to quit but I > cant seem to. ---------------- Please consider finding a doctor who is knowledgeable about Revia (naltrexone). It is a medication taken for a short period of time (six months maybe) which has had good results in combatting cravings among people who have the reaction to alcohol that you describe. It's not a magic pill and doesn't work all by itself, but research shows it can be really physically helpful in situations such as yours, especially when combined with non-judgmental counseling. The doctor who has pioneered the use of naltrexone for overcoming alcohol dependency is ph Volpicelli, M.D. of the University of Pennsylvania. If you like, I get find out his e-mail address, maybe he can recommend a physician in your area who is familiar with this. ~Rita Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 7, 2001 Report Share Posted February 7, 2001 > > I read RR and was trying to implement it in my life. > Well I ended up drinking. I know AA doesnt work for me but I m worried > because it seems nothing does. What I dont buy about RR is: nutrition doesnt > matter, > ------------ I agree, it's another of my criticisms of Trimpey -- he has no interest in health or nutrition issues and in fact scorns approaches that are. One book I found quite interesting and helpful was " How to Stop Drinking Without AA " by Jerry Dorsman. It begins with a list of health and emotional questionnaires designed to get you to be more self-aware of your emotional and bodily reactions not only to alcohol (and in different amounts and settings), but reactions to sugar, various foods, etc. Dorsman is a big believer in viewing severely cutting down or quitting drinking as part of a larger continuum of improving health by eating better, exercising, and generally taking better care of your body. And he encourages you to continually note your physical and emotional reactions to various diet and other changes as you make them. Therefore there is no one-size-fits-all, everyone's body reacts differently. > > Why would I drink again? Its like I cant stop myself once I feel that > intense urge to drink. Im confuseed though because I dont buy the whole AA > concept that im just selfish and self-centered. I know better than to drink > but why cant I stop? I blackout ive lost my license for 4 years, I almost > got kicked out of my apt for turning the music so loud I want to quit but I > cant seem to. ---------------- Please consider finding a doctor who is knowledgeable about Revia (naltrexone). It is a medication taken for a short period of time (six months maybe) which has had good results in combatting cravings among people who have the reaction to alcohol that you describe. It's not a magic pill and doesn't work all by itself, but research shows it can be really physically helpful in situations such as yours, especially when combined with non-judgmental counseling. The doctor who has pioneered the use of naltrexone for overcoming alcohol dependency is ph Volpicelli, M.D. of the University of Pennsylvania. If you like, I get find out his e-mail address, maybe he can recommend a physician in your area who is familiar with this. ~Rita Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 7, 2001 Report Share Posted February 7, 2001 In a message dated 2/6/01 9:10:01 PM Pacific Standard Time, dixie@... writes: << I believe there is plenty of evidence to show that people have always been addicted. One need only read literature from the 19th, 18th, and 17th centuries. Since we have no empirical data from those years, our evidence has to come from jail records, literature, and historical accounts. Bonney Prince Charlie may well have lost the battle at Culloden due to alcoholism--it is certain that the drinking and partying he did the night before did not help his forces at all. (That they had only broadswords >> I would have to go with Dixie on this one. Piper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 7, 2001 Report Share Posted February 7, 2001 In a message dated 2/6/01 9:10:01 PM Pacific Standard Time, dixie@... writes: << I believe there is plenty of evidence to show that people have always been addicted. One need only read literature from the 19th, 18th, and 17th centuries. Since we have no empirical data from those years, our evidence has to come from jail records, literature, and historical accounts. Bonney Prince Charlie may well have lost the battle at Culloden due to alcoholism--it is certain that the drinking and partying he did the night before did not help his forces at all. (That they had only broadswords >> I would have to go with Dixie on this one. Piper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 7, 2001 Report Share Posted February 7, 2001 In a message dated 2/6/01 9:10:01 PM Pacific Standard Time, dixie@... writes: << I believe there is plenty of evidence to show that people have always been addicted. One need only read literature from the 19th, 18th, and 17th centuries. Since we have no empirical data from those years, our evidence has to come from jail records, literature, and historical accounts. Bonney Prince Charlie may well have lost the battle at Culloden due to alcoholism--it is certain that the drinking and partying he did the night before did not help his forces at all. (That they had only broadswords >> I would have to go with Dixie on this one. Piper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.