Guest guest Posted August 9, 2001 Report Share Posted August 9, 2001 MonaHolland1@... wrote: > In a message dated 8/8/01 11:52:15 PM US Eastern Standard Time, > rita66@... writes: > > > >> (sigh) -- but what if " your own way to stay sober " is to do it >> WITHOUT= >> >> attending recovery groups? > > > > > Then do that. No one in LSR cares if you do, and you will be wished > well. > > Mona, But how much lobbying has LSR done to be the coerced treatment of choice? How much lobbying did LSR do to get into the Texas prison system? Perhaps hardly anyone in AA cares one way or the other about coercion into AA, " I never coerced anyone, it is the courts that do it. " However, their H&I committees have worked for decades to get courts to coerce attendance and to work their way into the prison system, without counting what NCADD has done to get coerced treatment in the workplace. Ken > > >> >> One major justification for opposing coerced attendance at >> recovery gr= >> >> oups is that it results in people being PROHIBITED from engaging in >> self-rec= >> >> overy -- in other words, abstinence via personal recognizance and >> personal >> c= >> >> ommitment is " incorrect " sobriety. > > That is not a major legal justidication for opposing it. It is a > political > one. > > --Mona-- > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 9, 2001 Report Share Posted August 9, 2001 MonaHolland1@... wrote: > In a message dated 8/8/01 11:52:15 PM US Eastern Standard Time, > rita66@... writes: > > > >> (sigh) -- but what if " your own way to stay sober " is to do it >> WITHOUT= >> >> attending recovery groups? > > > > > Then do that. No one in LSR cares if you do, and you will be wished > well. > > Mona, But how much lobbying has LSR done to be the coerced treatment of choice? How much lobbying did LSR do to get into the Texas prison system? Perhaps hardly anyone in AA cares one way or the other about coercion into AA, " I never coerced anyone, it is the courts that do it. " However, their H&I committees have worked for decades to get courts to coerce attendance and to work their way into the prison system, without counting what NCADD has done to get coerced treatment in the workplace. Ken > > >> >> One major justification for opposing coerced attendance at >> recovery gr= >> >> oups is that it results in people being PROHIBITED from engaging in >> self-rec= >> >> overy -- in other words, abstinence via personal recognizance and >> personal >> c= >> >> ommitment is " incorrect " sobriety. > > That is not a major legal justidication for opposing it. It is a > political > one. > > --Mona-- > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 9, 2001 Report Share Posted August 9, 2001 MonaHolland1@... wrote: > In a message dated 8/8/01 11:52:15 PM US Eastern Standard Time, > rita66@... writes: > > > >> (sigh) -- but what if " your own way to stay sober " is to do it >> WITHOUT= >> >> attending recovery groups? > > > > > Then do that. No one in LSR cares if you do, and you will be wished > well. > > Mona, But how much lobbying has LSR done to be the coerced treatment of choice? How much lobbying did LSR do to get into the Texas prison system? Perhaps hardly anyone in AA cares one way or the other about coercion into AA, " I never coerced anyone, it is the courts that do it. " However, their H&I committees have worked for decades to get courts to coerce attendance and to work their way into the prison system, without counting what NCADD has done to get coerced treatment in the workplace. Ken > > >> >> One major justification for opposing coerced attendance at >> recovery gr= >> >> oups is that it results in people being PROHIBITED from engaging in >> self-rec= >> >> overy -- in other words, abstinence via personal recognizance and >> personal >> c= >> >> ommitment is " incorrect " sobriety. > > That is not a major legal justidication for opposing it. It is a > political > one. > > --Mona-- > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 9, 2001 Report Share Posted August 9, 2001 P.S. The study is " Dittman KS, Crawford GG, Forgy EW, Moskowitz H, and Mac C, " A Controlled Experiment on the Use of Court Probation for Drunk Arrests. " American Journal of Psychiatry 124(1967):160-163 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 9, 2001 Report Share Posted August 9, 2001 P.S. The study is " Dittman KS, Crawford GG, Forgy EW, Moskowitz H, and Mac C, " A Controlled Experiment on the Use of Court Probation for Drunk Arrests. " American Journal of Psychiatry 124(1967):160-163 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 9, 2001 Report Share Posted August 9, 2001 P.S. The study is " Dittman KS, Crawford GG, Forgy EW, Moskowitz H, and Mac C, " A Controlled Experiment on the Use of Court Probation for Drunk Arrests. " American Journal of Psychiatry 124(1967):160-163 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 9, 2001 Report Share Posted August 9, 2001 Ken, Minor point of fact. SOS is the Texas prison system alternative, not LSR. And a question: Given that (in the state of California at least) Moderation Management is approved as a court-orderable support group, and that MM coordinators will sign court cards, does the state have *any* right to coerce *any* alcohol-problems related support group attendance for DUI offenders? Or is mandatory support group attendance per se a violation of individual rights? Take care, Diane J. > > But how much lobbying has LSR done to be the coerced treatment of > choice? How much lobbying did LSR do to get into the Texas prison > system? > > Perhaps hardly anyone in AA cares one way or the other about coercion > into AA, " I never coerced anyone, it is the courts that do it. " > However, their H&I committees have worked for decades to get courts to > coerce attendance and to work their way into the prison system, without > counting what NCADD has done to get coerced treatment in the workplace. > > Ken > > > > > > >> > >> One major justification for opposing coerced attendance at > >> recovery gr= > >> > >> oups is that it results in people being PROHIBITED from engaging in > >> self-rec= > >> > >> overy -- in other words, abstinence via personal recognizance and > >> personal > >> c= > >> > >> ommitment is " incorrect " sobriety. > > > > That is not a major legal justidication for opposing it. It is a > > political > > one. > > > > --Mona-- > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 9, 2001 Report Share Posted August 9, 2001 Ken, Minor point of fact. SOS is the Texas prison system alternative, not LSR. And a question: Given that (in the state of California at least) Moderation Management is approved as a court-orderable support group, and that MM coordinators will sign court cards, does the state have *any* right to coerce *any* alcohol-problems related support group attendance for DUI offenders? Or is mandatory support group attendance per se a violation of individual rights? Take care, Diane J. > > But how much lobbying has LSR done to be the coerced treatment of > choice? How much lobbying did LSR do to get into the Texas prison > system? > > Perhaps hardly anyone in AA cares one way or the other about coercion > into AA, " I never coerced anyone, it is the courts that do it. " > However, their H&I committees have worked for decades to get courts to > coerce attendance and to work their way into the prison system, without > counting what NCADD has done to get coerced treatment in the workplace. > > Ken > > > > > > >> > >> One major justification for opposing coerced attendance at > >> recovery gr= > >> > >> oups is that it results in people being PROHIBITED from engaging in > >> self-rec= > >> > >> overy -- in other words, abstinence via personal recognizance and > >> personal > >> c= > >> > >> ommitment is " incorrect " sobriety. > > > > That is not a major legal justidication for opposing it. It is a > > political > > one. > > > > --Mona-- > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 9, 2001 Report Share Posted August 9, 2001 Ken, Minor point of fact. SOS is the Texas prison system alternative, not LSR. And a question: Given that (in the state of California at least) Moderation Management is approved as a court-orderable support group, and that MM coordinators will sign court cards, does the state have *any* right to coerce *any* alcohol-problems related support group attendance for DUI offenders? Or is mandatory support group attendance per se a violation of individual rights? Take care, Diane J. > > But how much lobbying has LSR done to be the coerced treatment of > choice? How much lobbying did LSR do to get into the Texas prison > system? > > Perhaps hardly anyone in AA cares one way or the other about coercion > into AA, " I never coerced anyone, it is the courts that do it. " > However, their H&I committees have worked for decades to get courts to > coerce attendance and to work their way into the prison system, without > counting what NCADD has done to get coerced treatment in the workplace. > > Ken > > > > > > >> > >> One major justification for opposing coerced attendance at > >> recovery gr= > >> > >> oups is that it results in people being PROHIBITED from engaging in > >> self-rec= > >> > >> overy -- in other words, abstinence via personal recognizance and > >> personal > >> c= > >> > >> ommitment is " incorrect " sobriety. > > > > That is not a major legal justidication for opposing it. It is a > > political > > one. > > > > --Mona-- > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 9, 2001 Report Share Posted August 9, 2001 dianede@... wrote: > Ken, > > Minor point of fact. SOS is the Texas prison system alternative, not > LSR. > > And a question: > > Given that (in the state of California at least) Moderation Management > is approved as a court-orderable support group, and that MM > coordinators will sign court cards, Diane, Is that so? There goes my estimation of MM down a few notches. > does the state have *any* right to > coerce *any* alcohol-problems related support group attendance for DUI > offenders? Or is mandatory support group attendance per se a violation > of individual rights? While I see it as a violation of individual rights, I see a much more dangerous long term threat. What we are talking about is the government sending people to a government-approved group to, ultimately, accept a government-approved world view and self-identity. That effects _all_ our rights. You change someone's world view and view of themselves, and you change how they vote. As it stands now, with AA and the other Step groups staying " purely spiritual " and out of politics, we have one to two million people being coerced into the Step groups. People are " changed, " which was _exactly_ the intent of the founders. Once changed they can't help themselves and band together in " outside, " " unconnected " groups like NCADD and Join Together to lobby for more coercion. Ken > > > Take care, > Diane J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 9, 2001 Report Share Posted August 9, 2001 > > > " Using " free recovery groups?? How could the government do this > without the active participation of said free recovery groups?? > > > > It's not active... nobody **has** to sign any slips. > > > Perhaps you misunderstand my question -- or perhaps you avoid the > issue -- but the question is, why does LSR agree to tattle to the courts and > the EAP's on people's attendance or lack thereof? > > See above. And tattle is a pejorative word. " Fricking inner child whining " are pejorative words. > No, I understand your issue. IMO, it's that you simply don't like the fact > that a court sentence is not subject to democratic vote. Read > 's post again, or read it the first time if you haven't. > Or to use my even more directl language... the court doesn't give a flying > fuck what you like or don't like when you get sentenced *****for a fricking > crime!***** Hello, you're a criminal at that point. The judge doesn't care > if you'd rather have an orange jumpsuit than a white one. It doesn't care if > you think your parole or probation officer doesn't like you. It doesn't care > if it sentences you to months of community service trash pickup during the > summer and your fair complexion burns easily. > In a DUI, it doesn't give a flying fuck if ***you*** don't think you're > alcoholic either. Especially if it has background evidence to indicate a > present pattern of behavior, or has concerns about a possibly developing > pattern of behavior. It sees a behavior and prounounces sentence. Period. > It does not ask, you, Rita, to like the sentence. It certainly does not > invite you to express your opinion on it. It says, " Guilty. Here's your > sentence. Take this parole or probation, or non-jail sentencing.... or else, > do the time. " > You, the convicted criminal, are not extended a vote on this matter. > The court cares not if you are pounding your emotional feet inside and > saying.... I don't wannna go to..... wherever. As long as the sentence > passes the 1st and 8th Amendments, tough shit. You lost. Period. I think you're missing something here, Steve -- well, a couple things, but I'll get around to the other later. First, if you start signing slips, your group becomes subject to other government demands. Look at the land experience. And also look at the AA experience generally -- do you, as an LSR member, really want a lot of court-ordered people in your group who don't want to be there? Isn't that going to spoil the integrity of the group? Seems to me that if you're going to sign slips, maybe you ought to sign them to make people go away. Second issue -- can the judge sentence me to pick up trash all summer if I sunburn easily? I believe this depends on a number of things. How old am I? Do I have skin cancer? Do I have chronic obstructive pulmonary disease? Am I a double amputee? I hope you'll acknowledge that the judge can't order me to jump off the Golden Gate Bridge. After a week in which Korey Stringer died, which I'm sure is national news, and after two high school basketball players died of cardiac arrest in outdoor practice here in town, I'd be awfully careful what I sentenced a person to do outdoors if I were a judge. Lastly, judges simply have no authority to mess with people's minds. Those anger management programs you refer to are run by the courts. They aren't simply randomly selected because Ann Landers or a fellow member of the bench says they work. These programs would be subject to any challenge that any penal policy would be, and it would somewhat easier to establish a challenge, if appropriate, because the governmental participation is unquestioned. I hear what you say about LSR, but I can also believe that someone, somewhere may have legitimate, constitutional reasons to disagree with it. > > > > The courts and authorities can TRY to require attendance and slips to > " prove " it, but they can't require LSR to sign these slips. So why agree to > be unpaid enforcers of the court's decree in this way? Why not let the > authorities do their own dirty work in re enforcement of > parole/probation/gov't employment conditions? > > > > What does LSR get out of being part of such a system? > > Again, LSR " gets " nothing.... It's free choice whether to sign such a slip > or not. I, personally, have no problem doing so. Why should I put somebody > in further trouble? True, some court ordered people don't want to be in > recovery rooms... but some DO! > And those who really don't can go to the rooms, get the meeting schedule, > then get bar friends to sign their slips. Happens all the time. > If somebody comes, tho, I'll befriend them. It's for the individual.. I'm > not doing any " dirty work. " Beyond that, this is not some court conspiracy. > Again (and how many times have I said this one too)... the court can > " coerce " appearances at other programs for other problems. > The battering husband can claim " I don't have an anger problem. " The court > says... we don't care what you think, you were arrested for domestic > violence.... go to anger management or do the time. > Again -- period. End of sentence (Or, should I say, beginning of sentence?) > The court doesn't care about any fricking inner-child whining that you don't > like the sentence. > Steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 9, 2001 Report Share Posted August 9, 2001 I read it -- I don't agree with all of it -- and if it's had an impact on my thoughts, you can get it from my posts on any subject at all. Most of what he says, I have already thought of or read elsewhere. > please see my comments below: > Re: Re: New here > > > . > > > > > For the Nth time, as long as it doesn't violate 1st or 8th Amendments, if > > you are convicted, a court can sentence you to whatever sort of flying > fuck > > it deems applicable. > > Like said, it's not about what you or I want! It's about the > > legal powers the court system has. Period. > > Okay, Okay, Okay... I think we GET it. Okay? We get the damn SEMANTICS of > the way it IS vs. the way it SHOULD or COULD be. > > CAN we agree that it SUCKS that the court IS creative in it's setencing? > And CAN we agree that the way it IS is not the way it may always BE? That > the way it might OUGHT to be is the way it may actually someday BE? > > > That includes the court system using free recovery support groups rather > > than paid counselors. > > Unless, as part of fine-related sentencing, it says, you go to > professional > > counseling and YOU pay the counselor, or else go to jail. > > And here is where I, personally, would like to see this thread take a soft > turn and perhaps talk about the FACT that judges are PUNISHING people > through coercion to attend recovery groups! If they can and do coerce people > as they damn well please as a way to keep non-violent criminals (assuming no > DUI person killed anyone) out of the clink it sounds to me like they are > forcing group therapy and calling it punishment. If it's punishment, it > ain't recovery and I don't know what the damn judge thinks he's > accomplishing there. > > > Courts use unpaid anger management programs for domestic violence cases. > > They have **every** business sentencing how they damn well think is legal > > and applicable. Period. > > It is not the place of a judge to say whether or not someone is an alcoholic > (as we understand it), or that someone needs freaking treatment!!!!!!!!!!! > I know that for Washington state, a judge can order an assessment and that > the convict follow through on the assessments recomendations as well as the > recomendations of the probation officer. I say, the judge has NO place in > determining WHAT treatment course to take. If it IS happening that way > (without input from probation officers or treatment assessment centers) then > it seems to me that it that could be argued under the 8th Amendment. > Furthermore, I have a big problem with probation officers calling all the > shots and having the judge follow through like a friggen robot. Where is > the oversight? There is none. > And our only ideology is to find your own way to s= > > tay > > > sober. > > (sigh) -- but what if " your own way to stay sober " is to do it > WITHOUT= > > attending recovery groups? > > One major justification for opposing coerced attendance at recovery > gr= > > oups is that it results in people being PROHIBITED from engaging in > > self-rec= > > overy -- in other words, abstinence via personal recognizance and personal > > c= > > ommitment is " incorrect " sobriety. > > > >-- but coerced > > i= > > nvolvement DEMANDS that the person pretend to need such support, whether > or > > = > > not it is true. > > And if it follows that a judge has no business defining the treatment plan, > then where does the judge get off in not allowing a person to take the path > of recovery on their own? I think this is excellent fodder for discussion. > Have you all done your homework assignment and read Whites Essay yet? (tsk > tsk) Let's please talk about that... > > > > How many times does Mona (or myself) have to say that? > > ZERO more times.... please. > > lisak Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 9, 2001 Report Share Posted August 9, 2001 Judges are not qualified to, and should not, make medical judgements. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 9, 2001 Report Share Posted August 9, 2001 Steve -- The point you are not taking in is that judges are not allowed to speculate about whether offenders are " in denial. " Judges are simply not qualified to judge that. They are not alloiwed to speculate about whether the behavior would continue without " treatment. " Someone, I think , said that there are guidelines that judges may not ignore. This is true, but it's a shame. Judges are not allowed to draw these kinds of conclusions about any other type of offender but sex offenders, I believe. And the same kind of dilemma exists in their case, as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 9, 2001 Report Share Posted August 9, 2001 > Okay P- just wondering, but you say you go to OA... don't you have any > alternatives? Like Weight Watchers? Of course, WW makes you pay a fee ( I > think it's nominal like 8 bucks a month... or maybe a week... and on > principal that pisses me off)... just wondering. I havent been for quite some time, but I will probably go back. WW is a fully commercial operation and hence will charge a significant amount. I dont want to go to a commercial thing anyway, and there isnt much else apart from OA, though I've thought of starting something. P. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 9, 2001 Report Share Posted August 9, 2001 What you say, Mona, brings up a question that I find very interesting. Whereas sexual harassment in the workplace is deemed wrong, in part because it creates a " hostile work environment, " no other workplace behavior (so far as I know) is banned for that reason. Asking someone to take unnecessary medication, imo, falls in the same category. In other words, employers are not allowed to be complete assholes -- they can be total assholes in an area not carved out by the law. I understand that an " expectation of privacy " for purposes of wiretapping is a legal concept and has nothing to do with an individual's subjective expectation of privacy, I do contend that the expectation of privacy had a jumping off place, which was the subjective expectation. And I have similar problems with the idea that a hostile workplace is only one in which people are asked to engage in sex acts against their will, or harassed sexually in other ways. Is it a hostile workplace if my employer commands me to take unnecessary medication? I think so. I think most people would think so. And yet most people do not understand how narrow that concept is. > In a message dated 8/9/01 12:15:47 AM US Eastern Standard Time, > rita66@w... writes: > > > > I do not believe that employers can require unnecessary medical treatment as > > a condition of employment -- I believe there have been lawsuits over > > requiring plastic surgery, etc. in some professions where the employer > > wants a certain " look " . > > These lawsuits were brought under Title VII and the Fourteenth Amendment. > They were claimed to constitute discrimination on the basis of gender. An > employer may not discriminate against " protected classes. " But he can > otherwise be an asshole. > > > And obviously no employer can require employees to take unnecessary > medication > > or engage in general in any medical or psychiatric treatment at the > > employer's whim. So why then is it acceptable for an employer to require > > employees to state that they are " alcoholic " with the " disease " of > > alcoholism, and require them to engage in what is commonly thought of as a > > form of treatment for that " disease " , if the employee does not have such a > > " disease " ? > > > > I'm not sure an employer could not require a person to take unnecessary > medication. It is outrageous, but not all things outrageous are illegal. > After all, they can test your pee anytime they want. > > --Mona-- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 9, 2001 Report Share Posted August 9, 2001 > (sigh) -- but what if " your own way to stay sober " is to do it WITHOUT= > attending recovery groups? Good point. Some ppl dont do the group thing too well. I knew someone who usdd weight watchers to losse weight by just using the diet, she couldnt handle the meetings. Given that some ppl are shy and intimidated by groups and not suited to them temperamentally, then coercing to them may in fact be quite cruel. I note that you were only able to avoid AA by attending SMART and were given all kinds of bull about " getting a SMART sponsor " and stuff. when steppers cant get ppl into XA, they fall back on just trying to ceroce ppl into a group - almost any group, instead. Even arch AA Floyd Garrett once managed to talk himself round into saying any group would do, even nothing to do with addiction/recovery and even possibly MM! Why this preoccupation with groups? The sociologist Durkheim suggests that when ppl worship God in a religion, they are actually worshipping the Society in which they live. Religion functions to ensure commitment to the Society. Hence the fear of " Godless " atheists and the like. Someone who worships any God is better than someone who is an entirely free spirit, and hence if you can be coerced into a religious group then that will do, and if it is itself dominated by the dominant religion of that society, so much the better. Failing that, any group will do, because at least by coercing you to a group they are forcing you to submit to some form of social control, and as such your individuality is constrained. " Recovery groups " of pretty well any stripe, whether they have a " disease model " of any kind (and AA doesnt officially subscribe to a formally declared disease model, certainly does not officially require belief in one) clearly address the problem of addiction entirely as an attribute of the individual, rather than resulting in part from a larger context. Now of course, drinking/using is ultimately a person's own responsibility, but by the *societal* response solely focussing on that individual responsibility, it means that it is free to ignore the social factors that also input into the problem. While to some extent any group will do, one that challenges the dominant ethos of the society is dangerous. Because your understanding of Judaism sees responsibility with alcohol in a totally diferrent way from the Temperance-movement Demon-Drink cultural heritage of the United States, it will not do. It might be an amusing thought to speculate if a court might accept as an alternative to an abstinence-based program a series of study sessions with a Rabbi of Jewsih Studies group focussing on Jewish theories of personal and social responsibility, especially in matters related to alcohol? One things for certain - they couldn't make you do it! P. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 9, 2001 Report Share Posted August 9, 2001 I think the two are different. > In a message dated 8/9/01 1:02:56 PM US Eastern Standard Time, > kayleighs@m... writes: > > > > The point you are not taking in is that judges are not allowed to > > speculate about whether offenders are " in denial. " Judges are simply > > not qualified to judge that. > > Why not? They regularly chastise for failure to show remorse. > > --Mona-- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 9, 2001 Report Share Posted August 9, 2001 > >dianede@... wrote: > > > Ken, > > > > Minor point of fact. SOS is the Texas prison system alternative, not > > LSR. > > > > And a question: > > > > Given that (in the state of California at least) Moderation Management > > is approved as a court-orderable support group, and that MM > > coordinators will sign court cards, > >Diane, > >Is that so? There goes my estimation of MM down a few notches. > > > does the state have *any* right to > > coerce *any* alcohol-problems related support group attendance for DUI > > offenders? Or is mandatory support group attendance per se a violation > > of individual rights? > >While I see it as a violation of individual rights, I see a much more >dangerous long term threat. What we are talking about is the government >sending people to a government-approved group to, ultimately, accept a >government-approved world view and self-identity. That effects _all_ our >rights. You change someone's world view and view of themselves, and you >change how they vote. > >As it stands now, with AA and the other Step groups staying " purely >spiritual " and out of politics, we have one to two million people being >coerced into the Step groups. People are " changed, " which was _exactly_ >the >intent of the founders. Once changed they can't help themselves and band >together in " outside, " " unconnected " groups like NCADD and Join Together to >lobby for more coercion. > >Ken So maybe you at least shade toward a more anarchic view, as Mona wondered? Steve _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 9, 2001 Report Share Posted August 9, 2001 > >I think you're missing something here, Steve -- well, a couple things, >but I'll get around to the other later. First, if you start signing >slips, your group becomes subject to other government demands. Look >at the land experience. And also look at the AA experience >generally -- do you, as an LSR member, really want a lot of >court-ordered people in your group who don't want to be there? Isn't >that going to spoil the integrity of the group? Seems to me that if >you're going to sign slips, maybe you ought to sign them to make >people go away. Laws vary from state to state, and I would challenge any state law that said I was subject to other govt demands. No I don't, on the court-ordered issue... but sometimes you never know what seed is planted. Steve _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 9, 2001 Report Share Posted August 9, 2001 >From: kayleighs@... >Reply-To: 12-step-free >To: 12-step-free >Subject: Re: New here >Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2001 18:38:20 -0000 > >I think the two are different. > > > > In a message dated 8/9/01 1:02:56 PM US Eastern Standard Time, > > kayleighs@m... writes: > > > > > > > The point you are not taking in is that judges are not allowed to > > > speculate about whether offenders are " in denial. " Judges are >simply > > > not qualified to judge that. > > > > Why not? They regularly chastise for failure to show remorse. > > > > --Mona-- They may be different in circumstances, but not in kind, I don't think. Steve _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 9, 2001 Report Share Posted August 9, 2001 " Attending a GROUP is relying on others..... thus, not SELF help, but GROUP help..... " Why is it so wrong to get some help from other people? I see a *big* difference between being a Support Group Junkie who can't function without the group dictating the belief system, telling one what to do, totally propping the person up, a person who promptly falls apart the moment the group isn't there, someone who can't/won't think for hirself; and someone who gets some support and input while doing what needs to be done. I see an either/or dichotomy here. Either it's SELF help, or it's GROUP help. Why must this necessarily be so? Why can't some people take responsiblity for their actions, do what they need to do, and still ask for some support at certain crucial times? It's one thing to be as powerless over the Group as one was earlier over alcohol. It's another thing to need a boost from time to time. Cheers, nz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 9, 2001 Report Share Posted August 9, 2001 Hi : Duaine M here: I went to an AA meeting that promoted it's self as a meeting for people who had a problem with the higher power concept of AA. As it turned out it was stacked with people who clamed to have been agnostic or atheist but now saw the light. I told them that they were a bunch of liars. They miss led people into coming to the meeting expecting to get one thing and they delivered some thing completely different. I look on someone in AA with great supposition that clams to have been an atheist or agnostic. Re: New here Steve,You don't know me very well...> >> > That's it. Where the hell is the meeting? I got to see formyself.> >> > >> No, that's not it! That's bullshit. Since we don't have steps, wedon't have> a "higher power" including the group. We are not AA without god. Weare not> AA without steps. We are our own program, moving beyond being stuckto the> tar-baby of AA.> SteveWhen I said, "That's it." it was an expression of exasperation. Ijust spent time at an AA meeting, my first in over seven years as partof my project for school. The title of my paper is "Powerlessness andthe Shift to a Spiritual Worldview In Alcoholics Anonymous." Beforeanyone jumps on me about the use of "spiritual" as opposed to"religious," let me just say that my paper doesn't depend on definingthat and instead argues that in either case members becomeother-directed and the *other* is a spiritual entity. (Actually, I'mhoping to post a link to it when I'm farther along to get input...butit isn't ready yet).When I was in the program, the meeting I attended *was* the "WeAgnostics." All they did was redouble their efforts to coerce aspiritual understanding and half the meeting was taken up withmeditation. People *say* they can work the steps as "agnostics" or"athiests." I remain doubtful (putting it mildly).RE: LSR/SOS, my bias going into a meeting there would be that it *hasnothing much to do with AA*. But now you all have me curious and I'dlike to see for myself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 9, 2001 Report Share Posted August 9, 2001 Hi : Duaine M here: I went to an AA meeting that promoted it's self as a meeting for people who had a problem with the higher power concept of AA. As it turned out it was stacked with people who clamed to have been agnostic or atheist but now saw the light. I told them that they were a bunch of liars. They miss led people into coming to the meeting expecting to get one thing and they delivered some thing completely different. I look on someone in AA with great supposition that clams to have been an atheist or agnostic. Re: New here Steve,You don't know me very well...> >> > That's it. Where the hell is the meeting? I got to see formyself.> >> > >> No, that's not it! That's bullshit. Since we don't have steps, wedon't have> a "higher power" including the group. We are not AA without god. Weare not> AA without steps. We are our own program, moving beyond being stuckto the> tar-baby of AA.> SteveWhen I said, "That's it." it was an expression of exasperation. Ijust spent time at an AA meeting, my first in over seven years as partof my project for school. The title of my paper is "Powerlessness andthe Shift to a Spiritual Worldview In Alcoholics Anonymous." Beforeanyone jumps on me about the use of "spiritual" as opposed to"religious," let me just say that my paper doesn't depend on definingthat and instead argues that in either case members becomeother-directed and the *other* is a spiritual entity. (Actually, I'mhoping to post a link to it when I'm farther along to get input...butit isn't ready yet).When I was in the program, the meeting I attended *was* the "WeAgnostics." All they did was redouble their efforts to coerce aspiritual understanding and half the meeting was taken up withmeditation. People *say* they can work the steps as "agnostics" or"athiests." I remain doubtful (putting it mildly).RE: LSR/SOS, my bias going into a meeting there would be that it *hasnothing much to do with AA*. But now you all have me curious and I'dlike to see for myself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 9, 2001 Report Share Posted August 9, 2001 Hi : Duaine M here: I went to an AA meeting that promoted it's self as a meeting for people who had a problem with the higher power concept of AA. As it turned out it was stacked with people who clamed to have been agnostic or atheist but now saw the light. I told them that they were a bunch of liars. They miss led people into coming to the meeting expecting to get one thing and they delivered some thing completely different. I look on someone in AA with great supposition that clams to have been an atheist or agnostic. Re: New here Steve,You don't know me very well...> >> > That's it. Where the hell is the meeting? I got to see formyself.> >> > >> No, that's not it! That's bullshit. Since we don't have steps, wedon't have> a "higher power" including the group. We are not AA without god. Weare not> AA without steps. We are our own program, moving beyond being stuckto the> tar-baby of AA.> SteveWhen I said, "That's it." it was an expression of exasperation. Ijust spent time at an AA meeting, my first in over seven years as partof my project for school. The title of my paper is "Powerlessness andthe Shift to a Spiritual Worldview In Alcoholics Anonymous." Beforeanyone jumps on me about the use of "spiritual" as opposed to"religious," let me just say that my paper doesn't depend on definingthat and instead argues that in either case members becomeother-directed and the *other* is a spiritual entity. (Actually, I'mhoping to post a link to it when I'm farther along to get input...butit isn't ready yet).When I was in the program, the meeting I attended *was* the "WeAgnostics." All they did was redouble their efforts to coerce aspiritual understanding and half the meeting was taken up withmeditation. People *say* they can work the steps as "agnostics" or"athiests." I remain doubtful (putting it mildly).RE: LSR/SOS, my bias going into a meeting there would be that it *hasnothing much to do with AA*. But now you all have me curious and I'dlike to see for myself. 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.