Evidence-based medicine indicates that yes, it does. Better than placebo. And it works better than a few other common modalities for some types of alcoholics.
From an earlier post by me in this thread: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=360260&page=1
I’m not trying to claim it’s easy. And yet it is the only way. Whether one attends AA, some other alternative, or nothing at all, we all have to stop drinking and there’s only one way to do that: make a personal decision to refrain from consuming alcohol.
I suppose what I’m saying is that there isn’t really a “treatment” as such. Some folks may find AA helps them stick to their decision, and more power to them. But there isn’t a way to break free of the addiction without eschewing alcohol, and there isn’t a way to do that other than refraining from drinking it.
Well done on solving your problem. I don’t count days, months or years in AA style, but I’d guess I last drank sometime in 2003.
Judges can offer alternatives, however.
They can say: “2 years in prison. Or as an alternative you can choose 15 days in jail if you agree to attend a rehab program”.
QTM, you and the researchers you cite surely know a lot more than I do about the topic. But has anyone suggested a mechanism by which AA might work?
I know quite a few people who use 12 secular steps in their everyday lives and have been sober for decades. I’m not sure of the particulars with each state, on how they handle court ordered AA - I know I’ve seen people getting cards signed for the court.
Alternatives certainly, but the only two alternatives can’t be jail or AA. That’s precisely the situation that the court was dealing with in the case I cited. Presumably if the choice was jail, AA, or a secular anti-addiction group, they’d be in the clear.
Isn’t that what courts have held to be unconstitutional? Well, unconstitutional if the only available rehab is AA?
As others have mentioned, AA is very often the only game in town - there seems little point in drawing attention to theoretically secular recovery if it isn’t available in practice to our hypothetical defendant.
The “alternative” you mention is something of a Hobson’s choice. It’s certainly coercion by any meaningful definition. How about saying something like “15 days in jail if you don’t drink. We’ll test you weekly/randomly as a condition of your parole or probation. If we find you’ve been drinking, it’s 2 years for you.”
As a person who is atheistic, irritated by references to God, and offended by the notion of self-abasement, I’m fairly certain that it only works better than placebo for people with certain mindsets and preferences. I’ve never been to an AA meeting (by virtue of the fact I’ve never drunk alcohol), but from the sound of it I would hate it to my very core. I very much doubt it would be at all effective on me.
That’s actually very well-put. Indeed, I have a friend I talk to occasionally who is a former drinker and a devout Christian. He is also offended by AA’s references to God. To him, it’s his duty to his god to lead a good and honourable life, not his god’s duty to him to micromanage his alcohol use. Alcohol, for him, adversely affects his ability to follow the tenets of his (Protestant) religion. He believes his god gave him free will, and as such it’s his own responsibility to make worthwhile use of that privilege.
I’ve certainly drunk alcohol, to excess, and I’m also an atheist. I can’t take AA’s idea of a nebulous “higher power” which, of course, can be whatever any individual wants it to be; and although I’ve certainly been to rehabs and AA meetings, they didn’t help. Hell, when I was there I just told the people that I defined myself as my own “higher power”. They didn’t seem to mind, but I wondered what the idea even meant, when it could be so vaguely and opportunistically defined.
But I do try to live and let live. AA does me no harm (not these days, anyhow) and so I guess if people like it, well, OK.
I once thought as you did. 
I’m a pretty fuzzy agnostic these days, but I acknowledge a lot of things more powerful than myself, some bad and some good. Alcohol is one of the bad things more powerful than me.
All I can say is: It works for me, I’m now “other-directed” but I certainly am not religious, and I found a ton of AA groups that I’m very comfortable participating in with that outlook.
Gotta run, “Deadliest Catch” is coming on!
Yes, very much so. And a very creepy one at that.
<Eagles>
You can check in anytime you like, but you can never leave…
</Eagles>
Alcoholics Anonymous as a Cult
Then again, if joining a cult helps you to quit drinking…awesome. Hopefully you can then move on to becomimg your your own person. But therein lies the rub. Exceedingly hard to become your own person when you’re surrounded by dogmatic zombies (“sponsors”). Sober and yet high as all get-out on The (infallible) Steps.
A Bible by any other name…
Where do judges get the authority to offer these alternatives? When I read a law it finishes with something like …" a person found in violation of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and punished by incarceration of up to 15 days in the county jail and/or up to a $1000 fine"
Now, where in here can a judge say “5 days in jail, attend a victim impact panel, apologize to your mom, do the hokey pokey, and pay a $400 fine”.???
“$50 and time served.” - Judge Harry Stone
Creative sentencing – THAT’S what it’s all about.
If a judge gives you less than the maximum jail time and maximum fine he can place you on probation for up to 4 years. The conditions you list may be ordered as reasonable conditions of probation, if you decide you do not agree to the terms you can refuse and serve the maximum sentence without the conditions you deem so onerous. (California)(Victim Impact Panel is a standard California condition for a DUI, it is not required by the DUI statute but many counties require it if sentence is less than the maximum.)
Of course it’s not a cult. It’s a group of people trying to help each other stay sober. They have a doctrine, but, from what i understand they don’t demand slavish obedience to it. I’ve known AA people who were complete atheists.
To me a cult requires a leader, a central unquestionable dogma from which no deviation is allowed, and near total isolation from the outside world. AA has none of those. They’re decentralized, allow people to pick and choose from their dogma, and encourage engagement with the world. The very opposite of a cult.
According to who? Are there records available for examination that actually show this?
I suppose I understand that in principle, but it still seems to me to be a form of coercion. After all, if a judge offers me the choice of 2 years in jail or accepting that I must stand on my head and recite Shakespearean sonnets each day for 15 minutes, I’d probably choose the latter. I’d still be likely to complain that no-one’s interests are being served, though, and forcing unwilling people into AA meetings is equally pointless.
I’m naive enough to believe that there should be some public interest consideration involved in sentences. If I habitually drive drunk, then I should be prevented from doing so. Maybe, when I drink, I become incapable of determining why it’s a bad idea to drive drunk, so I shouldn’t be allowed to drink at all. That’s a fair condition, but attempting to specify precisely how I should avoid booze? I don’t see why society should care about that.
I don’t know. The fact that AA’s leaders are now dead isn’t immediately relevant. They are still revered. They don’t demand slavish obedience, but it’s encouraged. In many meetings, their doctrines are not questionable, not because of institutional rules, but simply because to do so is considered unacceptable in the group.
When I first encountered them, they strongly advised “90 in 90” - that is, 90 meetings in 90 days. That isn’t a very good way to encourage engagement with the world - what with that and work, I’d never have seen anyone but my colleagues and AA members.
It’s not a cult, but it’s certainly not “the opposite” of a cult.
Judges may no longer specify AA (in CA) they simply state that the defendant must attend X number of “Self Help” meetings per week (Granted, some judges don’t keep up with the law and still say AA on the record but it is not legally effective). They can be AA ,private psychologist, scientology meetings, meetings with a clergy member or any other form of “Self Help”. Of course you must satisfy the court that the meetings you choose are somewhat efficacious and all judges will readily accept AA to satisfy the requirement, but if you have an alternative just run it by the judge maybe he or she will accept it.
Conditions must be somehow reasonably related to the charged crime. For example if you are convicted of beating your spouse but there is no allegation that alcohol was involved you can be required to participate in a batterers program but not an alcohol program. If you destroy your mothers car you can be required to apologize and even agree to wash the new car you will be required to buy for her but you can’t be required to wash the judges car.