# Alcoholics Anonymous: Good? Bad? Indifferent? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 5, 2010, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alcoholics-anonymous-good-bad-indifferent/535084 "2010-04-05T22:43:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2010, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alcoholics-anonymous-good-bad-indifferent/535084/1 "2010-04-05T22:43:51Z")
I have been in a conversation regarding the efficacy and overall usefulness of Alcoholics Anonymous (AA). Unfortunately the info on this seems to be all over the place from opinions they are cult-like and do more harm than good to people who think AA is a life saver. There seems to be inconclusive evidence out there and depending who you read it can swing either way on this. I do not want to state my position just yet but would rather see this thread evolve of its own accord. From my discussions so far GD seems the place for this. So, opinions? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2010, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alcoholics-anonymous-good-bad-indifferent/535084/2 "2010-04-05T23:38:18Z")
Where are the stats on how well it works? Percentage-wise, how does it compare to other programs? Are there any double-blind studies? ---
**Author:** ![ToeJam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/dfb087/32.png) [@ToeJam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ToeJam)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2010, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alcoholics-anonymous-good-bad-indifferent/535084/3 "2010-04-05T23:41:13Z")
I think the big thing with AA is you get what you put in, and (perhaps it’s biggest pro), you get what you pay for. Other than that, I don’t really have too much experience with AA other than it’s useful for some, but not for others and it varies from location to location as to how "good’ it can be. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2010, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alcoholics-anonymous-good-bad-indifferent/535084/4 "2010-04-05T23:41:21Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Where are the stats on how well it works? Percentage-wise, how does it compare to other programs? Are there any double-blind studies? Not to mention it sounds like the negative properties are likely to be unquantifiable and entirely a matter of opinion. Is there a metric for “Cultlike”? If this thread takes off it’s going to be a battle of opinions at its core. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2010, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alcoholics-anonymous-good-bad-indifferent/535084/5 "2010-04-05T23:58:41Z")
With a program that large, with so many people singing its praises, with that many chapters throughout the world-I bet there are dozens, it not hundreds of scientific studies and reams of statistical information to reference. Right? ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2010, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alcoholics-anonymous-good-bad-indifferent/535084/6 "2010-04-06T00:57:29Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > With a program that large, with so many people singing its praises, with that many chapters throughout the world-I bet there are dozens, it not hundreds of scientific studies and reams of statistical information to reference. > Right? Actually no. I find lots of places on the web making various claims but on the face of them it is difficult to judge how reliable they are or whether they have an axe to grind. I found two publications in journals but I can only read the abstract. Here’s one: > [@](#): > > The paper is concerned with methodological problems relating to the scientific study of the effectiveness of Alcoholics Anonymous (AA). Studies of the effectiveness of AA fall into two categories–longitudinal and cross-sectional, and may be criticized on the basis of over-simple criteria of success. The particular problems of the requirement for control groups in studies of effectiveness are pointed out. The problems arising out of the whole process of affiliation and disaffiliation and their implications for scientific study are discussed. The requirement for sound statistical analysis is stressed, and inadequacies in the techniques of follow-up are indicated. The studies which have some bearing on AA as a treatment facility are reviewed. These include multivariate studies involving AA attendance as one factor, studies in which AA was the main variable in a hospital programme, and longitudinal studies of AA from within the organization. Particular difficulties in using cross-sectional surveys for the purpose of estimating efficacy are pointed out. The conclusion reached is that because of the methodological difficulties the totality of these studies dose not add significantly to the knowledge concerning AA which we possess from clinical experience. Moreover, without a change in the unusual characteristics of AA when considered as a treatment facility it seems unlikely to be possible to assess its effectiveness in a scientific manner. > > SOURCE: [The efficacy of Alcoholics Anonymous: the elusiveness of hard data - PubMed](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1084198) Here’s the other with no abstract but a title that is suggestive: [The efficacy of Alcoholics Anonymous: the elusiveness of hard data](http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/reprint/128/6/572.pdf) (note that site is not actually a PDF despite the URL looking like it is. ETA: That second one seems to be exactly the same as the first. Found the abstract and it is identical. ---
**Author:** ![Qadgop\_the\_Mercotan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/qadgop_the_mercotan/32/83_2.png) [@Qadgop\_the\_Mercotan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qadgop_the_Mercotan)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2010, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alcoholics-anonymous-good-bad-indifferent/535084/7 "2010-04-06T01:22:05Z")
From my post in this thread: [Straight Dope Message Board - Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/)…=360260&page=1 [Quote=QtM] In 2002, the Project Match study released its results of the largest clinical trial ever comparing treatment results. It was widely hailed as the first such study to objectively assess outcomes. It compared Twelve-Step Facilitation therapy, Motivational Enhancement therapy, and Cognitive-Behavioral Skills training. And it concluded: > [@](#): > > Clients who entered treatment with a high level of state/trait anger fared best in Motivational Enhancement Therapy through the three years of follow-up. Those whose social support systems favored continued drinking rather than abstinence benefitted most from Twelve-Step facilitation. Outpatients with less concomitant psychopathology likewise fared better in Twelve-Step facilitation than in Cognitive-Behavior therapy. Finally, the Twelve-Step treatment was more beneficial for aftercare patients with high levels of alcohol dependence, whereas those with lower levels of dependence fared better in Cognitive-Behavior Therapy [http://casaa.unm.edu/match.html](http://casaa.unm.edu/match.html) Patients who had high levels of anger management problems did better with Motivational Enhancement therapy. Patients whose alcohol dependence was assesed to be low did better with Cognitive Behavior therapy. But patients whose social structures revolved around drinking, patients who had a high level of alcohol dependence, and patients with minimal psychopathology all did significantly better with 12 Step therapy. And frankly, these 3 types of “problem drinkers” make up the largest segment of the treatment candidates. AA is not for everyone. And I say that as a fuzzy Deist/Agnostic alcoholic physician and AA member with over 15 years of sobriety whose own patient population has about a 70% substance abuse rate. But we now have decent objective evidence that for certain very common types of problem drinkers, The 12 Step success rate is higher than the two other most commonly used treatment modalities. [/quote] I’ve not kept up with the literature since. But I do know that these types of studies are quite tough to do, and even tougher to tease relevant data out of. But it’s a decent attempt to quantify outcomes. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2010, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alcoholics-anonymous-good-bad-indifferent/535084/8 "2010-04-06T01:33:44Z")
> [@Qadgop\_the\_Mercotan](#): > > From my post in this thread: [Straight Dope Message Board - Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/)…=360260&page=1 > I’ve not kept up with the literature since. But I do know that these types of studies are quite tough to do, and even tougher to tease relevant data out of. But it’s a decent attempt to quantify outcomes. Offering this as a data point. Wiki has criticisms of Project MATCH listed. Curious what you think of these. > [@](#): > > Cutler and Fishbain July 14th, 2005, in a review of Project Match , stated that in out of more than 60 publications generated by Project MATCH , all have overlooked important results: first, the good outcomes of the zero treatment group, {those people who volunteered for treatment but dropped out} when compared to the full treatment group, and second, that improvement in all groups occurred immediately after enrollment in the study. " A median of only 3% of the drinking outcome at follow-up could be attributed to treatment. However this effect appeared to be present at week one before most of the treatment had been delivered. The zero treatment dropout group showed great improvement, achieving a mean of 72 percent days abstinent at follow-up… two-thirds to three-fourths of the improvement in the full treatment group was duplicated in the zero treatment group." They concluded that the success rate shown in project MATCH, had more to do with the population of people who volunteered for the study than with the treatments that were administered. Those who received zero treatment {people who dropped out of the study immediately} had better outcomes than those who received one session of treatment. Evidence is showing that extensive therapy may be no more effective than that of brief intervention, there is also literature that shows many of those with serious alcohol consumption problems are able to recover without any treatment.[6] > > Dr. Stanton Peele criticized MATCH on the basis that there was no control group { a group selected specifically for non treatment} , to determine whether the treatments were more effective than the natural recovery process. Therapists in MATCH were more highly trained and monitored than addiction counselors usually available to the public. Effectiveness for all treatments was measured by reduction in frequency and intensity of drinking, whereas twelve-step and abstention-based programs, he argued, should claim no improvement without full abstention. Peele states the Project Match failure to confirm a matching hypothesis revealed more its oversights in their methods, as well as shows that American conceptions of alcoholism and treatment policy are fundamentally wrong. Non American research has shown that subjective matching does work and other research shows that many with alcohol abuse problems heal on their own without treatment. [7] > > George Vaillant argues researchers need to examine differences between alcoholics who succeed in recovering and those who fail, rather than limiting themselves to a search for contrasts among professionally run treatments. > > Project MATCH was poorly designed, to say the least," asserts psychologist G. Alan Marlatt of the University of Washington in Seattle, a pioneer in the development of behavioral treatments for alcoholism. Marlatt states: “Everybody can now project their own views about alcoholism onto this study.”[8] > > SOURCE: [Project MATCH - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MATCH) ---
**Author:** ![Qadgop\_the\_Mercotan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/qadgop_the_mercotan/32/83_2.png) [@Qadgop\_the\_Mercotan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qadgop_the_Mercotan)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2010, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alcoholics-anonymous-good-bad-indifferent/535084/9 "2010-04-06T01:54:39Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Offering this as a data point. Wiki has criticisms of Project MATCH listed. Curious what you think of these. I think it’s really, really tough to come up with an objective study on the topic, given the difficulty generating control groups, proper blinding, dealing with a patient population whose honesty about their success tends to be quite variable and who are often lost to follow-up, etc. etc. Peele and Marlatt have been longtime critics of the current approach to to alcoholism theory and treatment, and Marlatt has been an advocate of controlled drinking over abstinence for alcoholics, despite it being demonstrated that in the studies he cites, outcomes are worse for those trying to return to controlled drinking. An interesting summary on this dichotomy in Chemical Dependency treatment may be found [here](http://www.naatp.org/pdf/2009_annual_conference/the_two_cultures_of_chemical_dependence_treatment_time_for_reconciliation.pdf). ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2010, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alcoholics-anonymous-good-bad-indifferent/535084/10 "2010-04-06T01:58:28Z")
Did Project MATCH actually even assess AA? I note the careful use of “12-Step” programs and not AA. Are AA and 12-step synonymous? ---
**Author:** ![Qadgop\_the\_Mercotan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/qadgop_the_mercotan/32/83_2.png) [@Qadgop\_the\_Mercotan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qadgop_the_Mercotan)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2010, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alcoholics-anonymous-good-bad-indifferent/535084/11 "2010-04-06T02:01:31Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Did Project MATCH actually even assess AA? I note the careful use of “12-Step” programs and not AA. Are AA and 12-step synonymous? They’re pretty close to synonymous. AA essentially invented the 12 steps. So when they assess the effectiveness of 12 step programs, they’re assessing the effectiveness of AA, unless they’re specifically excluding AA by focusing on NA and/or CA in terms of their effects on addicts. And AA is still by far the largest 12 step organization out there. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2010, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alcoholics-anonymous-good-bad-indifferent/535084/12 "2010-04-06T02:25:00Z")
> [@Qadgop\_the\_Mercotan](#): > > I think it’s really, really tough to come up with an objective study on the topic, given the difficulty generating control groups, proper blinding, dealing with a patient population whose honesty about their success tends to be quite variable and who are often lost to follow-up, etc. etc. I found this one (well, a guy talking about it who admittedly wrote a book on AA as a cult) but it seems well cited. > [@](#): > > One important study was published in 1983. For eight years, its author, George Vaillant, followed 100 patients who had undergone 12-step treatment; he compared this sample to several hundred other untreated alcohol abusers. The treated patients fared no better than the untreated group. Fully 95% of the treated patients relapsed at some time during the eight years Vaillant followed them, and he concluded that "there is compelling evidence that the results of our treatment were no better than the natural history of the disease."xxxii He added, "Not only had we failed to alter the natural history of alcoholism, but our death rate of three percent a year was appalling."xxxiii > > Another very important, very scientifically sound study appeared in 1996. The National Longitudinal Alcoholism Epidemiological Survey was designed and sponsored by the NIAAA and was conducted by the U.S. Bureau of the Census. It was notable both for its size (4,585 subjects) and its study period (20 years). Its subjects were divided into a treated group and an untreated group. All of the study’s subjects "had to have satisfied the criteria for prior-to-past year DSM-IV alcohol dependence by meeting at least 3 of the 7 DSM-IV criteria for dependence: tolerance; withdrawal (including relief or avoidance of withdrawal); persistent desire or unsuccessful attempts to cut down on or stop drinking; much time spent drinking, obtaining alcohol or recovering from its effects; reduction or cessation of important activities in favor of drinking; impaired control over drinking; and continued use despite physical or psychological problems caused by drinking."xxxiv > > The study’s findings were surprising: At 20 years after onset of symptoms, 80% of those who had undergone treatment were either abstinent or “drinking without abuse or dependence.” But those who had never undergone treatment were doing even better: 90% of them were either abstinent or drinking nonproblematically. That is, 10% of those who had never been treated were still drinking abusively 20 years after the onset of symptoms, as were 20% of those who had been treated. In other words, twice as many of those who had undergone treatment were drinking abusively as those who had never been treated.xxxv > > Other important findings included the following: of those who had never been treated, fully 60% were drinking nonproblematically 20 years after the onset of symptoms; and even of those who had undergone treatment and had received dire warnings of loss of control, incurability, and progressivity, 28% were drinking nonproblematically 20 years after the onset of symptoms.xxxvi As well, in both groups, the percentage of those recovered (abstinent or drinking nonproblematically) steadily increased with time.xxxvii > > SOURCE: [OKCLUB](http://www.morerevealed.com/library/coc/chapter7.htm) ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2010, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alcoholics-anonymous-good-bad-indifferent/535084/13 "2010-04-06T02:29:02Z")
> [@Qadgop\_the\_Mercotan](#): > > They’re pretty close to synonymous. AA essentially invented the 12 steps. So when they assess the effectiveness of 12 step programs, they’re assessing the effectiveness of AA, unless they’re specifically excluding AA by focusing on NA and/or CA in terms of their effects on addicts. > > And AA is still by far the largest 12 step organization out there. But are the chapters of other 12-step programs run independent of each other and the parent group? ---
**Author:** ![Qadgop\_the\_Mercotan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/qadgop_the_mercotan/32/83_2.png) [@Qadgop\_the\_Mercotan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qadgop_the_Mercotan)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2010, 12:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alcoholics-anonymous-good-bad-indifferent/535084/14 "2010-04-06T12:23:41Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > But are the chapters of other 12-step programs run independent of each other and the parent group? Yes. Very much so. At least the ones I’m familar with are: AA, NA, CA, Al-anon. Each individual group pretty much answers only to its own members, i.e. those who show up to that particular meeting regularly. They’d need to answer to the central office if they were calling themselves AA groups but were violating any of the 12 traditions of AA, but otherwise they’re autonomous. AA doesn’t claim any authority over any other 12 step groups. They barely claim authority over AA as a whole. ---
**Author:** ![Qadgop\_the\_Mercotan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/qadgop_the_mercotan/32/83_2.png) [@Qadgop\_the\_Mercotan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qadgop_the_Mercotan)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2010, 12:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alcoholics-anonymous-good-bad-indifferent/535084/15 "2010-04-06T12:26:06Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > I found this one (well, a guy talking about it who admittedly wrote a book on AA as a cult) but it seems well cited. Other studies have not found that outcome: [Alcohol treatment utilization: Findings from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T63-4KNMB2H-1&_user=10&_coverDate=01%2F12%2F2007&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1283136119&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=6c7a5d512b1427f162018281d34ed3c2) > [@](#): > > The majority of individuals with an AUD never receive formal alcohol treatment, nor do they participate in self-help groups. Although natural recovery from an Alcohol Use Disorder is well documented, participation in alcohol treatment is associated with improved outcomes. ---
**Author:** ![Dinsdale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/97f17d/32.png) [@Dinsdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dinsdale)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2010, 1:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alcoholics-anonymous-good-bad-indifferent/535084/16 "2010-04-06T13:17:58Z")
Not sure the question lends itself to a simple answer. It seems to me undeniable that AA has helped many people improve their situation WRT their use/abuse of alcohol. So that would be good, no? It also seems undeniable that it is not perfectly successful for everyone who tries it, and that other approaches might work better for some folk. But that would only count against AA if it claimed to be infallible or the only possible solution. ---
**Author:** ![don\_t\_ask](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e68b1a/32.png) [@don\_t\_ask](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/don_t_ask)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2010, 1:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alcoholics-anonymous-good-bad-indifferent/535084/17 "2010-04-06T13:29:26Z")
> [@Dinsdale](#): > > But that would only count against AA if it claimed to be infallible or the only possible solution. That would be true if Bozos who know nothing about addiction couldn’t, by dint of running a court room, force young people to hang around with alcoholics to cure them of their alcoholism. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2010, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alcoholics-anonymous-good-bad-indifferent/535084/18 "2010-04-06T13:49:43Z")
> [@Qadgop\_the\_Mercotan](#): > > Other studies have not found that outcome: [Alcohol treatment utilization: Findings from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T63-4KNMB2H-1&_user=10&_coverDate=01%2F12%2F2007&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1283136119&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=6c7a5d512b1427f162018281d34ed3c2) I can only read the abstract there but sounds like they are saying nothing about AA in particular. Just some treatments are helpful without naming those treatments. ---
**Author:** ![iamthewalrus\_3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/258eb7/32.png) [@iamthewalrus\_3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamthewalrus_3)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2010, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alcoholics-anonymous-good-bad-indifferent/535084/19 "2010-04-08T23:06:21Z")
> [@Dinsdale](#): > > Not sure the question lends itself to a simple answer. It seems to me undeniable that AA has helped many people improve their situation WRT their use/abuse of alcohol. So that would be good, no? Well, maybe. Good for those people, certainly. But, completely hypothetically, what if it turned out that, say, 20% of people who went to AA were helped by it and stayed sober, while 80% were not helped and went on drinking, while, of people who did not seek help at AA, 30% got sober on their own (or through other means), while 70% kept drinking. Looking at numbers like that, you’d be hard-pressed to claim that AA is, on the whole, a net positive. Again, I don’t have any reason to believe that the numbers look like that. I simply don’t have enough information to have much of an opinion. But looking at individual stories and ignoring the statistics does not make for a good recommendation. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2010, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alcoholics-anonymous-good-bad-indifferent/535084/20 "2010-04-08T23:18:16Z")
> [@Qadgop\_the\_Mercotan](#): > > Yes. Very much so. > > At least the ones I’m familar with are: AA, NA, CA, Al-anon. And [Synanon?](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synanon)😉 [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alcoholics-anonymous-good-bad-indifferent/535084.md?page=2)