Re: Duaine re SOS & AA

[Guest guest]

>

> > Hi All:

>

> > Duaine M here:

>

> > What does SOS and some of it's members think about AA???

> > This is page on the SOS web site where I say what I think of AA

and another member adds her feelings.

> > http://www.sossobriety.com/aa-sos-usa.htm

> > Here is a more official stand on AA. That is if there is an

official stand that all of us agree on.

> > http://www.sossobriety.com/aa-sos.htm

> > (As I see it) Members of SOS go to meetings -don't go to any

meetings-Use AA-Don't use AA-use Smart-don't use Smart-I could go on

and on--we are each different no two are the same.

> > Some say they are drug addicts --some don't. I never do. I

reefer to my self as a person who made a choice to live my life

drug/alcohol free.

> > There are no rules on what a member does to get and stay clean &

sober--There are no rules about going or not going to meetings.

The one thing that we have in common is our vew on Abstinence. We

are an Abstinence support group.

[Guest guest]

The belief is more important than the " reality. "

Ken:

I lost my last AA friend who held an " alternative nontraditional " meeting at

her home when I told her I was not going back to AA, and had been doing some

reading that was supportive of my reasons for not doing so, and it seemed

like a rational conclusion to me. She told me that she believed that she had

relapsed because she didn't have the support of a group to celebrate her

sobriety with. She stated that she really believed she had to have this

support in order to stay sober.

I concluded that since she believed it, it would be true. We are not in

touch anymore, and I wouldn't do anything to challenge her beliefs because a)

she''s kind of fragile and doesn't like confrontation or debate, do I

really have a right to push my views or her? and c) I wouldn't suggest she

give up that which she believes keeps her sober, she'd probably resume

drinking.

Jan

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

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

In a message dated 8/13/01 1:13:28 PM Central Daylight Time, kenr1@...

writes:

<< There is _no_ evidence for this except for personal testimonials more

suitable to Wednesday-night prayer meetings. Granted, anyone who has come to

believe a group is necessary to stop drinking or asks about " outside support "

will get a referral to SMART, SOS, LSR and RR by me.(even though RR has no

groups) The belief is more important than the " reality. " If someone were

convinced by prior experience that eating guavas helped, I'd offer him a ride

to the grocery store.

>>

[Guest guest]

Rita:

You write:

>>>>Both of these statements illustrate what I was saying: that

LSR/SOS

perpetuates the myth that " recovery " group attendance

and involvement is

NECESSARY for overcoming a drinking problem. I

disagree with that, and there

is no research evidence to

support this point of view. It appears

that LSR/SOS is unwilling to question any

of the basic " truisms " of " addiction " and " recovery " ,

and therefore can be in a

sense thought of as " AA without the 'God' and

'powerless' stuff " .>>>>

All of the secular support groups (WFS, SOS, SMART, MM and LSR)

believe that group attendance and involvement can be helpful in

overcoming an addiction problem. This is hardly surprising, since

very few people who believe that group attendance and involvement are

not only unnecessary but probably harmful are going to go to the

bother of forming a support group that disbelieves in support groups

. I know of none that states, or even implies, that it is the

*only* way to overcome one. If by their mere existence they perpetuate

the myth of necessity and the basic truisms of recovery, then the

groups are guilty. If judged by their official positions on the

issues, then not.

All of the groups (WFS, SOS, SMART, MM and LSR) participate in

state-coerced treatment to the extent that groups are willing to sign

court slips and to be presented to the courts as " AA alternatives " for

that purpose. SOS is the official " nonAA " in the prison system in

Texas; SMART is the official " nonAA " in the Arizona prison system. RR,

in its first incarnation (the one with groups) was not only willing

but eager to be accepted as the official alternative in land and

New Hampshire. Et cetera.

It would be highly surprising if they did not. The court battles

for the past 25 years have been ENTIRELY fought and won on the very

limited basis of the right of a sentenced individual to choose a

non-religious approach (Establishment Clause victories), never on the

right of the individual to declare that he/she doesn't have a disease

and has no need of an unproven and possibly damaging treatment for it.

I do not believe this is going to happen anytime soon. Most coerced

treatment in the US is actually " treatment 'option' " coercion--ie.,

the individual is " allowed to choose " treatment as a substitute for

the legally enforceable punishment for their actions (instead of jail

time, instead of being fired, instead of losing a driver's or

professional license). The courts have never held that the state has

any obligation to provide sentence alternatives, nor would they, in my

opinion; all they have ever ruled is that IF a sentence alternative is

provided, it must not unduly favor a religion. They are even LESS

likely to hold that the state has an obligation to provide people with

" good choices. "

(If you want to eliminate most of the coerced treatment in this

country, the simplest way would be to lead a fight against alternative

sentencing, EAP programs, and licensing board diversions. You could

pick up a lot of political support for sending 'em all to rot in

prison, firing 'em at the first offense, and kicking those drunks out

of courtrooms and hospitals. It would take about five to ten years in

the present political climate, and be much easier legally than any

other approach.)

Given that legal status quo, the groups are not going to refuse to

sign slips on the grounds that they prefer to be purely voluntary. To

do so would, in their eyes, be a betrayal of the people for whom they

have actually been fighting: coerced people who want an alternative

nonAA group because of their objections to the " God " and " powerless "

(and " sponsors " and " steps " and " Keep coming back " and and and and) of

the AA program.

You may, from your point of view, find that these are minor

flavors of difference. For people who believe the group support idea

has some validity, the difference between being stuck in AA and being

stuck in SMART or SOS is considerable. They are not likely to agree

that the fight of the last twenty years for non-religious alternatives

was " just a shadow fight " between flavors of AA. (This is a relatively

new view of the secular groups, and one that I can't help noticing has

been articulated only *after* the heavy lifting in the religious

establishment fight against AA is already over.)

It sounds to me as if, to qualify for true alternative status in

your eyes, a group would have to: 1. deny that there is such a thing

as addiction; 2. deny that support groups are useful for drinking

problems; 3. refuse to allow itself to be offered as an alternative to

AA to legally coerced individuals who are asking for an alternative;

4. spend a lot of time attacking AA while explaining its own lack of

utility to the world. I think this would be a very interesting group

to observe, and I might even join it, but I'm not exactly sure it's

going to be able to stop chasing its own tail long enough to be a lot

of use to your cause.

Take care,

Diane J.

disclosure statement: the author is a member of the LSR mailing list.

disclosure statement: the author was involuntarily treated for a week

in 1992 in a 12step gulag and is STILL pissed off about it.

>

> > Hi All:

>

> > Duaine M here:

>

> > What does SOS and some of it's members think about AA???

> > This is page on the SOS web site where I say what I think of AA

and another member adds her feelings.

> > http://www.sossobriety.com/aa-sos-usa.htm

> > Here is a more official stand on AA. That is if there is an

official stand that all of us agree on.

> > http://www.sossobriety.com/aa-sos.htm

> > (As I see it) Members of SOS go to meetings -don't go to any

meetings-Use AA-Don't use AA-use Smart-don't use Smart-I could go on

and on--we are each different no two are the same.

> > Some say they are drug addicts --some don't. I never do. I reefer

to my self as a person who made a choice to live my life drug/alcohol

free.

> > There are no rules on what a member does to get and stay clean &

sober--There are no rules about going or not going to meetings. The

one thing that we have in common is our vew on Abstinence. We are an

Abstinence support group.

[Guest guest]

Rita:

You write:

>>>>Both of these statements illustrate what I was saying: that

LSR/SOS

perpetuates the myth that " recovery " group attendance

and involvement is

NECESSARY for overcoming a drinking problem. I

disagree with that, and there

is no research evidence to

support this point of view. It appears

that LSR/SOS is unwilling to question any

of the basic " truisms " of " addiction " and " recovery " ,

and therefore can be in a

sense thought of as " AA without the 'God' and

'powerless' stuff " .>>>>

All of the secular support groups (WFS, SOS, SMART, MM and LSR)

believe that group attendance and involvement can be helpful in

overcoming an addiction problem. This is hardly surprising, since

very few people who believe that group attendance and involvement are

not only unnecessary but probably harmful are going to go to the

bother of forming a support group that disbelieves in support groups

. I know of none that states, or even implies, that it is the

*only* way to overcome one. If by their mere existence they perpetuate

the myth of necessity and the basic truisms of recovery, then the

groups are guilty. If judged by their official positions on the

issues, then not.

All of the groups (WFS, SOS, SMART, MM and LSR) participate in

state-coerced treatment to the extent that groups are willing to sign

court slips and to be presented to the courts as " AA alternatives " for

that purpose. SOS is the official " nonAA " in the prison system in

Texas; SMART is the official " nonAA " in the Arizona prison system. RR,

in its first incarnation (the one with groups) was not only willing

but eager to be accepted as the official alternative in land and

New Hampshire. Et cetera.

It would be highly surprising if they did not. The court battles

for the past 25 years have been ENTIRELY fought and won on the very

limited basis of the right of a sentenced individual to choose a

non-religious approach (Establishment Clause victories), never on the

right of the individual to declare that he/she doesn't have a disease

and has no need of an unproven and possibly damaging treatment for it.

I do not believe this is going to happen anytime soon. Most coerced

treatment in the US is actually " treatment 'option' " coercion--ie.,

the individual is " allowed to choose " treatment as a substitute for

the legally enforceable punishment for their actions (instead of jail

time, instead of being fired, instead of losing a driver's or

professional license). The courts have never held that the state has

any obligation to provide sentence alternatives, nor would they, in my

opinion; all they have ever ruled is that IF a sentence alternative is

provided, it must not unduly favor a religion. They are even LESS

likely to hold that the state has an obligation to provide people with

" good choices. "

(If you want to eliminate most of the coerced treatment in this

country, the simplest way would be to lead a fight against alternative

sentencing, EAP programs, and licensing board diversions. You could

pick up a lot of political support for sending 'em all to rot in

prison, firing 'em at the first offense, and kicking those drunks out

of courtrooms and hospitals. It would take about five to ten years in

the present political climate, and be much easier legally than any

other approach.)

Given that legal status quo, the groups are not going to refuse to

sign slips on the grounds that they prefer to be purely voluntary. To

do so would, in their eyes, be a betrayal of the people for whom they

have actually been fighting: coerced people who want an alternative

nonAA group because of their objections to the " God " and " powerless "

(and " sponsors " and " steps " and " Keep coming back " and and and and) of

the AA program.

You may, from your point of view, find that these are minor

flavors of difference. For people who believe the group support idea

has some validity, the difference between being stuck in AA and being

stuck in SMART or SOS is considerable. They are not likely to agree

that the fight of the last twenty years for non-religious alternatives

was " just a shadow fight " between flavors of AA. (This is a relatively

new view of the secular groups, and one that I can't help noticing has

been articulated only *after* the heavy lifting in the religious

establishment fight against AA is already over.)

It sounds to me as if, to qualify for true alternative status in

your eyes, a group would have to: 1. deny that there is such a thing

as addiction; 2. deny that support groups are useful for drinking

problems; 3. refuse to allow itself to be offered as an alternative to

AA to legally coerced individuals who are asking for an alternative;

4. spend a lot of time attacking AA while explaining its own lack of

utility to the world. I think this would be a very interesting group

to observe, and I might even join it, but I'm not exactly sure it's

going to be able to stop chasing its own tail long enough to be a lot

of use to your cause.

Take care,

Diane J.

disclosure statement: the author is a member of the LSR mailing list.

disclosure statement: the author was involuntarily treated for a week

in 1992 in a 12step gulag and is STILL pissed off about it.

>

> > Hi All:

>

> > Duaine M here:

>

> > What does SOS and some of it's members think about AA???

> > This is page on the SOS web site where I say what I think of AA

and another member adds her feelings.

> > http://www.sossobriety.com/aa-sos-usa.htm

> > Here is a more official stand on AA. That is if there is an

official stand that all of us agree on.

> > http://www.sossobriety.com/aa-sos.htm

> > (As I see it) Members of SOS go to meetings -don't go to any

meetings-Use AA-Don't use AA-use Smart-don't use Smart-I could go on

and on--we are each different no two are the same.

> > Some say they are drug addicts --some don't. I never do. I reefer

to my self as a person who made a choice to live my life drug/alcohol

free.

> > There are no rules on what a member does to get and stay clean &

sober--There are no rules about going or not going to meetings. The

one thing that we have in common is our vew on Abstinence. We are an

Abstinence support group.

[Guest guest]

Rita:

You write:

>>>>Both of these statements illustrate what I was saying: that

LSR/SOS

perpetuates the myth that " recovery " group attendance

and involvement is

NECESSARY for overcoming a drinking problem. I

disagree with that, and there

is no research evidence to

support this point of view. It appears

that LSR/SOS is unwilling to question any

of the basic " truisms " of " addiction " and " recovery " ,

and therefore can be in a

sense thought of as " AA without the 'God' and

'powerless' stuff " .>>>>

All of the secular support groups (WFS, SOS, SMART, MM and LSR)

believe that group attendance and involvement can be helpful in

overcoming an addiction problem. This is hardly surprising, since

very few people who believe that group attendance and involvement are

not only unnecessary but probably harmful are going to go to the

bother of forming a support group that disbelieves in support groups

. I know of none that states, or even implies, that it is the

*only* way to overcome one. If by their mere existence they perpetuate

the myth of necessity and the basic truisms of recovery, then the

groups are guilty. If judged by their official positions on the

issues, then not.

All of the groups (WFS, SOS, SMART, MM and LSR) participate in

state-coerced treatment to the extent that groups are willing to sign

court slips and to be presented to the courts as " AA alternatives " for

that purpose. SOS is the official " nonAA " in the prison system in

Texas; SMART is the official " nonAA " in the Arizona prison system. RR,

in its first incarnation (the one with groups) was not only willing

but eager to be accepted as the official alternative in land and

New Hampshire. Et cetera.

It would be highly surprising if they did not. The court battles

for the past 25 years have been ENTIRELY fought and won on the very

limited basis of the right of a sentenced individual to choose a

non-religious approach (Establishment Clause victories), never on the

right of the individual to declare that he/she doesn't have a disease

and has no need of an unproven and possibly damaging treatment for it.

I do not believe this is going to happen anytime soon. Most coerced

treatment in the US is actually " treatment 'option' " coercion--ie.,

the individual is " allowed to choose " treatment as a substitute for

the legally enforceable punishment for their actions (instead of jail

time, instead of being fired, instead of losing a driver's or

professional license). The courts have never held that the state has

any obligation to provide sentence alternatives, nor would they, in my

opinion; all they have ever ruled is that IF a sentence alternative is

provided, it must not unduly favor a religion. They are even LESS

likely to hold that the state has an obligation to provide people with

" good choices. "

(If you want to eliminate most of the coerced treatment in this

country, the simplest way would be to lead a fight against alternative

sentencing, EAP programs, and licensing board diversions. You could

pick up a lot of political support for sending 'em all to rot in

prison, firing 'em at the first offense, and kicking those drunks out

of courtrooms and hospitals. It would take about five to ten years in

the present political climate, and be much easier legally than any

other approach.)

Given that legal status quo, the groups are not going to refuse to

sign slips on the grounds that they prefer to be purely voluntary. To

do so would, in their eyes, be a betrayal of the people for whom they

have actually been fighting: coerced people who want an alternative

nonAA group because of their objections to the " God " and " powerless "

(and " sponsors " and " steps " and " Keep coming back " and and and and) of

the AA program.

You may, from your point of view, find that these are minor

flavors of difference. For people who believe the group support idea

has some validity, the difference between being stuck in AA and being

stuck in SMART or SOS is considerable. They are not likely to agree

that the fight of the last twenty years for non-religious alternatives

was " just a shadow fight " between flavors of AA. (This is a relatively

new view of the secular groups, and one that I can't help noticing has

been articulated only *after* the heavy lifting in the religious

establishment fight against AA is already over.)

It sounds to me as if, to qualify for true alternative status in

your eyes, a group would have to: 1. deny that there is such a thing

as addiction; 2. deny that support groups are useful for drinking

problems; 3. refuse to allow itself to be offered as an alternative to

AA to legally coerced individuals who are asking for an alternative;

4. spend a lot of time attacking AA while explaining its own lack of

utility to the world. I think this would be a very interesting group

to observe, and I might even join it, but I'm not exactly sure it's

going to be able to stop chasing its own tail long enough to be a lot

of use to your cause.

Take care,

Diane J.

disclosure statement: the author is a member of the LSR mailing list.

disclosure statement: the author was involuntarily treated for a week

in 1992 in a 12step gulag and is STILL pissed off about it.

>

> > Hi All:

>

> > Duaine M here:

>

> > What does SOS and some of it's members think about AA???

> > This is page on the SOS web site where I say what I think of AA

and another member adds her feelings.

> > http://www.sossobriety.com/aa-sos-usa.htm

> > Here is a more official stand on AA. That is if there is an

official stand that all of us agree on.

> > http://www.sossobriety.com/aa-sos.htm

> > (As I see it) Members of SOS go to meetings -don't go to any

meetings-Use AA-Don't use AA-use Smart-don't use Smart-I could go on

and on--we are each different no two are the same.

> > Some say they are drug addicts --some don't. I never do. I reefer

to my self as a person who made a choice to live my life drug/alcohol

free.

> > There are no rules on what a member does to get and stay clean &

sober--There are no rules about going or not going to meetings. The

one thing that we have in common is our vew on Abstinence. We are an

Abstinence support group.

[Guest guest]

At 05:15 PM 8/13/01 +0000, you wrote:

> All of the secular support groups (WFS, SOS, SMART, MM and LSR)

>believe that group attendance and involvement can be helpful in

>overcoming an addiction problem.

Point of order: SMART is pretty free with the information that

most people recover from addictions on their own. I think it's

even in the official meeting intro. I agree with the gist of your

post, but wanted to toss that in there in fairness to the

SMART folks.

AA and some other groups will " encourage " you to try it on your

own, but will do so with a smug grin and a knowing nod. But I

never encountered such a thing in SMART, where it's common

knowledge that most addiction recovery is independent.

SMART has some problems of its own :-), but skepticism about

independent recovery is not one of them.

> It would be highly surprising if they did not. The court battles

>for the past 25 years have been ENTIRELY fought and won on the very

>limited basis of the right of a sentenced individual to choose a

>non-religious approach (Establishment Clause victories),

And this is a problem . . . as I mentioned earlier today, AA and

its clones have conditioned society to believe that some kind of

group is necessary. This affects people's legal status -- if you

don't join some group, you aren't considered truly penitent. And

it also affects people's minds.

[Guest guest]

,

You're absolutely right about SMART--that info is also on its

website.

I personally think the secular groups all have very different

flavors; my point was simply that if you think their mere existence

and willingness to sign court slips implicates them in the AA machine,

then they're all alike and all dismissable. If not, then not.

Take care,

Diane J.

(who is hoping this one only appears once--apologies again)

-- In 12-step-free@y..., wrote:

> At 05:15 PM 8/13/01 +0000, you wrote:

>

> > All of the secular support groups (WFS, SOS, SMART, MM and

LSR)

> >believe that group attendance and involvement can be helpful in

> >overcoming an addiction problem.

>

> Point of order: SMART is pretty free with the information that

> most people recover from addictions on their own. I think it's

> even in the official meeting intro. I agree with the gist of your

> post, but wanted to toss that in there in fairness to the

> SMART folks.

>

> AA and some other groups will " encourage " you to try it on your

> own, but will do so with a smug grin and a knowing nod. But I

> never encountered such a thing in SMART, where it's common

> knowledge that most addiction recovery is independent.

>

> SMART has some problems of its own :-), but skepticism about

> independent recovery is not one of them.

>

>

> > It would be highly surprising if they did not. The court

battles

> >for the past 25 years have been ENTIRELY fought and won on the very

> >limited basis of the right of a sentenced individual to choose a

> >non-religious approach (Establishment Clause victories),

>

> And this is a problem . . . as I mentioned earlier today, AA and

> its clones have conditioned society to believe that some kind of

> group is necessary. This affects people's legal status -- if you

> don't join some group, you aren't considered truly penitent. And

> it also affects people's minds.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

At 05:56 PM 8/13/01 +0000, you wrote:

>,

>

> You're absolutely right about SMART--that info is also on its

>website.

>

> I personally think the secular groups all have very different

>flavors; my point was simply that if you think their mere existence

>and willingness to sign court slips implicates them in the AA machine,

>then they're all alike and all dismissable. If not, then not.

I understood what you meant; I just wanted to clarify. Sorry

if that wasn't evident.

I hosted online SMART meetings for about six months. I even

" signed a court slip " (i.e., sent email testifying that someone

had attended) during that time. I felt a little funny about it, but

I figured she should be able to count it as long as she was being

required to go to meetings in the first place.

It's a tricky situation for the meeting hosts. I don't approve of

coercion either -- but as long as someone *is* being coerced,

is it right to refuse credit? If someone just sat there reading

the newspaper then it might be different, but the individual

for whom I wrote the email was actually participating and seemed

to really want to participate in SMART. In such a case, it

doesn't seem right to refuse to sign the slip.

I tend to agree with those who just want the coercion to stop.

It's ridiculous for allegedly-voluntary self-help support groups to

be dealing with this issue in the first place. Courts may have

the right to require abstinence, but the requirement to attend

some group or other is just ridiculous.

[Guest guest]

dianede@... wrote:

> Rita:

>

<---snip--->

>

> (If you want to eliminate most of the coerced treatment in this

> country, the simplest way would be to lead a fight against alternative

> sentencing, EAP programs, and licensing board diversions. You could

> pick up a lot of political support for sending 'em all to rot in

> prison, firing 'em at the first offense, and kicking those drunks out

> of courtrooms and hospitals. It would take about five to ten years in

> the present political climate, and be much easier legally than any

> other approach.)

>

Diane,

I just can't help but jump in.

As far as the EAP programs go, first I will argue with any drug testing. In

jobs where safety is a serious factor it seems much more reasonable to test

the ability of an employee to perform his job competently, safely. An

airline pilot who (unaware) has had a small stroke that effects his ability

to pilot or not enough sleep is also a danger and shouldn't be flying. Why

the obsession with if the pilot smoked marijuana within the last few weeks on

his time off and totally unconcern with whether he otherwise fit to pilot?

Why the idea that if you don't coerce someone into a recovery movement group

the only other alternative is to let them rot in jail? Has no one in the

recovery movement heard of probation for first offense?

<---snip--->

>

>

> It sounds to me as if, to qualify for true alternative status in

> your eyes, a group would have to: 1. deny that there is such a thing

> as addiction;

Addiction as defined in the public eye, the " educated view " handed to us by

groups like NCADD certainly doesn't exist. Do people drink themselves to

death? Of course. Are there certain dynamics rather common in these people?

Certainly.

> 2. deny that support groups are useful for drinking

> problems;

There is _no_ evidence for this except for personal testimonials more

suitable to Wednesday-night prayer meetings. Granted, anyone who has come to

believe a group is necessary to stop drinking or asks about " outside support "

will get a referral to SMART, SOS, LSR and RR by me.(even though RR has no

groups) The belief is more important than the " reality. " If someone were

convinced by prior experience that eating guavas helped, I'd offer him a ride

to the grocery store.

> 3. refuse to allow itself to be offered as an alternative to

> AA to legally coerced individuals who are asking for an alternative;

To fight to stop coercion into groups that have their own particular

ideology, most certainly, whether the ideology is " right " or " wrong. " The

government has no business in coercing changing peoples' minds, their world

view.

>

> 4. spend a lot of time attacking AA while explaining its own lack of

> utility to the world.

????

> I think this would be a very interesting group

> to observe, and I might even join it, but I'm not exactly sure it's

> going to be able to stop chasing its own tail long enough to be a lot

> of use to your cause.

Is there no place for iconoclasm in the modern world?

Ken Ragge

>

>

> Take care,

> Diane J.

>

> disclosure statement: the author is a member of the LSR mailing list.

> disclosure statement: the author was involuntarily treated for a week

> in 1992 in a 12step gulag and is STILL pissed off about it.

[Guest guest]

> >

> > > All of the secular support groups (WFS, SOS, SMART, MM and

> LSR)

> > >believe that group attendance and involvement can be helpful in

> > >overcoming an addiction problem.

> >

> > Point of order: SMART is pretty free with the information that

> > most people recover from addictions on their own. I think it's

> > even in the official meeting intro. I agree with the gist of your

> > post, but wanted to toss that in there in fairness to the

> > SMART folks.

> >

> > AA and some other groups will " encourage " you to try it on your

> > own, but will do so with a smug grin and a knowing nod. But I

> > never encountered such a thing in SMART, where it's common

> > knowledge that most addiction recovery is independent.

> >

> > SMART has some problems of its own :-), but skepticism about

> > independent recovery is not one of them.

> >

> >

> > > It would be highly surprising if they did not. The court

> battles

> > >for the past 25 years have been ENTIRELY fought and won on the

very

> > >limited basis of the right of a sentenced individual to choose a

> > >non-religious approach (Establishment Clause victories),

> >

> > And this is a problem . . . as I mentioned earlier today, AA and

> > its clones have conditioned society to believe that some kind of

> > group is necessary. This affects people's legal status -- if you

> > don't join some group, you aren't considered truly penitent. And

> > it also affects people's minds.

> >

> >

> >

And that is an important point that Rita has touched on in her posts.

When you deny the option of self-recovery, then you deny the person

the right to what has been, for all practicl purposes proven to be the

most effective method of quiting, then you throw a dangerous monkey

wrench into what it means to be human. And if you allow the option of

self-recovery--that is you DO NOT require any association with ANY of

these groups, then the whole argument becomes moot and we have

salvaged the " old fashion " and rational way of doing things.

Please do not think that I am not for giving people a second chance.

Many on other lists have accused me of this. And I place A DUI and

and a drug bust in two entirely different categories. Furthermore

DUI's have a wide range of agrevating/mitigating

factors/characteristics. Someone who drives through a school zone at

80mph at 3PM drunk as all hell should be thrown in the slammer for a

long time even on the first offense and even if no one is actually

physically harmed. Not so for someone barely over the limit not

driving recklessly.

Drugs? They should all be legal for adults, just like alcohol is now,

but driving is a different story.

The state should not be in the business of determining " how " a person

goes about not driving drunk again, only that they do and if they do

not then punish them. PERIOD.

Whatever lawyers take the forced/compelled/coerced AA issue into the

courts SHOULD NOT even bring up the issue of alternatives, let alone

be a lobby person for any one of them. The goal is to separate XA and

state, not to replace it with other belief systems that themselves

cannot be proved and in a much deeper sense could themselves be deemed

religious.

As far as the argument that alternatives provide a solution to forced

AA, they do in a sense, but they perpetuate the real problem, the big

problem--the Therapeutic State.

Tommy

[Guest guest]

Ken,

Thanks. Always a pleasure .

I just can't help but jump in.

>

> As far as the EAP programs go, first I will argue with any drug

testing. In

> jobs where safety is a serious factor it seems much more reasonable

to test

> the ability of an employee to perform his job competently, safely.

An

> airline pilot who (unaware) has had a small stroke that effects his

ability

> to pilot or not enough sleep is also a danger and shouldn't be

flying. Why

> the obsession with if the pilot smoked marijuana within the last few

weeks on

> his time off and totally unconcern with whether he otherwise fit to

pilot?

>

> Why the idea that if you don't coerce someone into a recovery

movement group

> the only other alternative is to let them rot in jail? Has no one

in the

> recovery movement heard of probation for first offense?

If you want to lead a charge to eliminate alternative sentencing for

drug and alcohol offenses AND eliminate or reduce penalties for many

drug and alcohol offenses, be my guest and I'll sign the petition. But

I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for the American public to go

there.

>

> <---snip--->

>

> >

> >

> > It sounds to me as if, to qualify for true alternative status

in

> > your eyes, a group would have to: 1. deny that there is such a

thing

> > as addiction;

>

> Addiction as defined in the public eye, the " educated view " handed

to us by

> groups like NCADD certainly doesn't exist. Do people drink

themselves to

> death? Of course. Are there certain dynamics rather common in

these people?

> Certainly.

Okay. (hey, I jumped in here to talk about the alternative groups. I'm

not even gonna pretend to defend NCADD. And yes, I know there are

NIAAA links on an unhooked.com " Resources Page. " There are also links

for Lindesmith, HabitSmart, and Heroin Times.....miss those?)

>

> > 2. deny that support groups are useful for drinking

> > problems;

>

> There is _no_ evidence for this except for personal testimonials

more

> suitable to Wednesday-night prayer meetings.

Did I say there WAS? I couldn't have, because there isn't any. What I

said was that I didn't think you could get a support group started

built around the supposition that support groups aren't useful AND

that such a support group seemed to be the only kind that would have

passed the " smell test " for the critics of secular groups.

Granted, anyone who

has come to

> believe a group is necessary to stop drinking or asks about " outside

support "

> will get a referral to SMART, SOS, LSR and RR by me.(even though RR

has no

> groups) The belief is more important than the " reality. " If

someone were

> convinced by prior experience that eating guavas helped, I'd offer

him a ride

> to the grocery store.

Well, if a whole lot of people had told me that eating guavas might

help, I would have tried that FIRST, trust me.

>

>

> > 3. refuse to allow itself to be offered as an alternative to

> > AA to legally coerced individuals who are asking for an

alternative;

>

> To fight to stop coercion into groups that have their own particular

> ideology, most certainly, whether the ideology is " right " or

" wrong. " The

> government has no business in coercing changing peoples' minds,

their world

> view.

This just takes us back to the middle of mine: if the government has

no business doing it, you can certainly persuade it to drop

alternative sentencing, et cetera, et cetera. I really do think this

could be accomplished. What I don't think is accomplishible is to

persuade it to do this AND to reduce drug and alcohol penalties at the

same time. And given that reality, I don't think the secular groups

should be bashed into the ground for cooperating....

>

> >

> > 4. spend a lot of time attacking AA while explaining its own lack

of

> > utility to the world.

>

> ????

Might have been too elliptical there--sorry (laugh). I meant attacking

AA's ideology and the disease theory, while explaining that support

groups aren't really useful for people....

>

> > I think this would be a very interesting group

> > to observe, and I might even join it, but I'm not exactly sure

it's

> > going to be able to stop chasing its own tail long enough to be a

lot

> > of use to your cause.

>

> Is there no place for iconoclasm in the modern world?

Sure, but given the fact that it took about thirty-five years for the

disease theory people to put the whole alternative sentencing

scaffolding INTO place, and then about twenty for secular objectors to

chip away at AA's exclusive role in coerced treatment, I don't think

you can blame me for being a little puzzled at the idea that the

secular groups should be leading the charge.

Take care,

Diane J.

>

> Ken Ragge

>

> >

> >

> > Take care,

> > Diane J.

> >

> > disclosure statement: the author is a member of the LSR mailing

list.

> > disclosure statement: the author was involuntarily treated for a

week

> > in 1992 in a 12step gulag and is STILL pissed off about it.

[Guest guest]

> If you want to lead a charge to eliminate alternative sentencing for

> drug and alcohol offenses AND eliminate or reduce penalties for many

> drug and alcohol offenses, be my guest and I'll sign the petition.

But

> I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for the American public to

go

> there.

Here is a repost of mine from a few months ago:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/12-step-free/message/28729

Tommy

[Guest guest]

> It sounds to me as if, to qualify for true alternative status

in

> your eyes, a group would have to: 1. deny that there is such a

thing

> as addiction; 2. deny that support groups are useful for drinking

> problems; 3. refuse to allow itself to be offered as an

alternative to

> AA to legally coerced individuals who are asking for an

alternative;

> 4. spend a lot of time attacking AA while explaining its own lack

of

> utility to the world. I think this would be a very interesting

group

> to observe, and I might even join it, but I'm not exactly sure

it's

> going to be able to stop chasing its own tail long enough to be a

lot

> of use to your cause.

Inspired by this post, and since my own email list has recently

vanished, I have started a new group!!

Anybody near Central Park is invited to the first weekly meeting

of PWAATAATMWDBIADNHWEAOMDBWLTAWOPROTFFTTT (people with an aversion

to alcoholics anonymous who don't believe in alcoholism and

don't need help with either abstaining or moderating drinking but

would like to associate with other people regardless of these facts,

from time to time) this Saturday at 1:45 PM.

Hopefully youll come and join us, Diane! For further info or

directions, feel free to call Bob W (Wehodababyeetzaboy) collect.

[Guest guest]

> >,

> >

> > You're absolutely right about SMART--that info is also on its

> >website.

> >

> > I personally think the secular groups all have very different

> >flavors; my point was simply that if you think their mere

existence

> >and willingness to sign court slips implicates them in the AA

machine,

> >then they're all alike and all dismissable. If not, then not.

>

> I understood what you meant; I just wanted to clarify. Sorry

> if that wasn't evident.

>

> I hosted online SMART meetings for about six months. I even

> " signed a court slip " (i.e., sent email testifying that someone

> had attended) during that time. I felt a little funny about it,

but

> I figured she should be able to count it as long as she was being

> required to go to meetings in the first place.

>

> It's a tricky situation for the meeting hosts. I don't approve of

> coercion either -- but as long as someone *is* being coerced,

> is it right to refuse credit? If someone just sat there reading

> the newspaper then it might be different, but the individual

> for whom I wrote the email was actually participating and seemed

> to really want to participate in SMART. In such a case, it

> doesn't seem right to refuse to sign the slip.

Well just think about this - would you want a stepper to be

deciding if the coercee had participated well enough to have his

slip signed? For someone who pushes individuality, (I believe you

do, , but it is hard to keep track of the various views

shared on this list) trying to mother the " victim " coercee doesn't

seem quite appropriate. For me it's either do or don't, not based

on their behaviour, but based on my own personal decision of will I

agree to condone or be a part of coercion or not? No, I won't.

> I tend to agree with those who just want the coercion to stop.

> It's ridiculous for allegedly-voluntary self-help support groups to

> be dealing with this issue in the first place. Courts may have

> the right to require abstinence, but the requirement to attend

> some group or other is just ridiculous.

Abolutely

[Guest guest]

At 08:59 PM 8/13/01 +0000, you wrote:

> Well just think about this - would you want a stepper to be

>deciding if the coercee had participated well enough to have his

>slip signed? For someone who pushes individuality, (I believe you

>do, , but it is hard to keep track of the various views

>shared on this list) trying to mother the " victim " coercee doesn't

>seem quite appropriate. For me it's either do or don't, not based

>on their behaviour, but based on my own personal decision of will I

>agree to condone or be a part of coercion or not? No, I won't.

I wasn't trying to mother her. I just didn't know what else to do.

I certainly don't like the coercion, but on the other hand I couldn't

very well deny that she had been there.

I'm not really sure what an individual should do to fight this sort

of coercion. Yes, coercion is bad, but would it have done any

good to write to her parole officer and say " I think coercion sucks,

and therefore I refuse to testify that she was at the meeting " ? I

can't see that making any real difference.

The land AA case is interesting. But that was an organized

effort, not one person refusing to sign.

[Guest guest]

> The belief is more important than the " reality. "

Hi Jan,

How bout - maybe.....

'Your beliefs are your reality'.

netty

[Guest guest]

netty:

I think that's implied. Restating it is splitting hairs.

Jan

> > The belief is more important than the " reality. "

>

> Hi Jan,

> How bout - maybe.....

> 'Your beliefs are your reality'.

> netty

[Guest guest]

Wild applause!

You stated this so well. It's so true! We need to wipe out treatment and

groups before we can fix em! (I'm giving a crude summary, but works for

me). I think the next step is to choose the activist movement you want to

join and go join it. I am now officially out of here and going to hang out

in Tommy Perkin's Coercion zone where I can make a difference, no matter how

small. I think nothing more can be stated after this one! I'll be popping

into the web group occasionally cuz I like Netty and and Ken and many

many others... but my energy is now elsewhere! Diane, my hat is off to you!

I'm saving your email, amongst a lot of others from Pete and and Rita

and more, but you have really tied it up in a pretty package for me.

Later!

lisak

>

> All of the secular support groups (WFS, SOS, SMART, MM and LSR)

> believe that group attendance and involvement can be helpful in

> overcoming an addiction problem. This is hardly surprising, since

> very few people who believe that group attendance and involvement are

> not only unnecessary but probably harmful are going to go to the

> bother of forming a support group that disbelieves in support groups

> . I know of none that states, or even implies, that it is the

> *only* way to overcome one. If by their mere existence they perpetuate

> the myth of necessity and the basic truisms of recovery, then the

> groups are guilty. If judged by their official positions on the

> issues, then not.

>

> All of the groups (WFS, SOS, SMART, MM and LSR) participate in

> state-coerced treatment to the extent that groups are willing to sign

> court slips and to be presented to the courts as " AA alternatives " for

> that purpose. SOS is the official " nonAA " in the prison system in

> Texas; SMART is the official " nonAA " in the Arizona prison system. RR,

> in its first incarnation (the one with groups) was not only willing

> but eager to be accepted as the official alternative in land and

> New Hampshire. Et cetera.

>

> It would be highly surprising if they did not. The court battles

> for the past 25 years have been ENTIRELY fought and won on the very

> limited basis of the right of a sentenced individual to choose a

> non-religious approach (Establishment Clause victories), never on the

> right of the individual to declare that he/she doesn't have a disease

> and has no need of an unproven and possibly damaging treatment for it.

> I do not believe this is going to happen anytime soon. Most coerced

> treatment in the US is actually " treatment 'option' " coercion--ie.,

> the individual is " allowed to choose " treatment as a substitute for

> the legally enforceable punishment for their actions (instead of jail

> time, instead of being fired, instead of losing a driver's or

> professional license). The courts have never held that the state has

> any obligation to provide sentence alternatives, nor would they, in my

> opinion; all they have ever ruled is that IF a sentence alternative is

> provided, it must not unduly favor a religion. They are even LESS

> likely to hold that the state has an obligation to provide people with

> " good choices. "

>

> (If you want to eliminate most of the coerced treatment in this

> country, the simplest way would be to lead a fight against alternative

> sentencing, EAP programs, and licensing board diversions. You could

> pick up a lot of political support for sending 'em all to rot in

> prison, firing 'em at the first offense, and kicking those drunks out

> of courtrooms and hospitals. It would take about five to ten years in

> the present political climate, and be much easier legally than any

> other approach.)

>

> Given that legal status quo, the groups are not going to refuse to

> sign slips on the grounds that they prefer to be purely voluntary. To

> do so would, in their eyes, be a betrayal of the people for whom they

> have actually been fighting: coerced people who want an alternative

> nonAA group because of their objections to the " God " and " powerless "

> (and " sponsors " and " steps " and " Keep coming back " and and and and) of

> the AA program.

>

> You may, from your point of view, find that these are minor

> flavors of difference. For people who believe the group support idea

> has some validity, the difference between being stuck in AA and being

> stuck in SMART or SOS is considerable. They are not likely to agree

> that the fight of the last twenty years for non-religious alternatives

> was " just a shadow fight " between flavors of AA. (This is a relatively

> new view of the secular groups, and one that I can't help noticing has

> been articulated only *after* the heavy lifting in the religious

> establishment fight against AA is already over.)

>

> It sounds to me as if, to qualify for true alternative status in

> your eyes, a group would have to: 1. deny that there is such a thing

> as addiction; 2. deny that support groups are useful for drinking

> problems; 3. refuse to allow itself to be offered as an alternative to

> AA to legally coerced individuals who are asking for an alternative;

> 4. spend a lot of time attacking AA while explaining its own lack of

> utility to the world. I think this would be a very interesting group

> to observe, and I might even join it, but I'm not exactly sure it's

> going to be able to stop chasing its own tail long enough to be a lot

> of use to your cause.

>

> Take care,

> Diane J.

>

> disclosure statement: the author is a member of the LSR mailing list.

> disclosure statement: the author was involuntarily treated for a week

> in 1992 in a 12step gulag and is STILL pissed off about it.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>