People keep mentioning “rehab” or places like the Betty Ford Clinic as alternatives to AA, and then add that they are prohibitively expensive so are not available to most people while AA, which is free, is available to all.
It’s true that these “rehab” programs are usually out of reach (cost-wise) to most people. I would just like to mention that the vast majority of the rehab programs are not an alternative to AA at all. They are based around the 12-Steps and people in these programs attend a lot of meetings while they are in rehab, and are expected to continue attending meetings once they leave. These rehab centers are mostly just a really expensive way to become inured with 12-Step groups.
This situation only adds to an already big problem of there not being nearly enough options to 12-Step programs widely available for those whom 12-Step dogma would not benefit (which in my opinion is the majority of people who seek help with a substance abuse issue).
I have many problems with AA and other 12-Step groups, but I accept that they are useful for a minority of problem drinkers/users, just as other types of faith-healing and religion in general is useful to some people. My biggest problem–and it really burns me up–is that medical providers–who should be basing their decisions on science, not faith–still recommend 12-Step to patients most of the time when often it is not an effective solution and can even be worse than no treatment at all (for some patients).
I absolutely agree that support from other people can be quite helpful to people undergoing a variety of problems. So to answer your question: yes–that makes sense to me. It’s just that I find groups espousing the 12-Steps are not particularly useful, and sometimes worse than not useful, for many of the people who are directed to them. For these individuals other types of support groups (e.g. ones that stress rationality and behavioral modification over faith-based help coming from nebulous places) would be more helpful.
I also agree with your implication that doctors do not have a monopoly on helpful advice for those suffering from a disease or other sort of complaint. The problem there is when one’s doctor purports to believe that alcohol dependence/abuse* is a disease, and then suggests you seek out a spiritual/religious group as a primary method of treating that disease.
*I don’t use the term ‘alcoholism’ because it is not a term used in classifying substance use problems in the good ol’ DSM-IV-R. Alcohol dependence and alcohol abuse are the conditions addressed by the DSM, neither one of which, ISTM, is considered a disease by that manual.
AA has worked for me for nearly 24 years. I still know many people who where there when I started, many who’ve since died sober and those that also started around the same time. Everyone sober in AA knows the recidivism statistics, we see people come and go all the time. So what. My chances of stopping on my own, saving my marriage and becoming an employable useful citizen of my community were slim at age 35. I have little doubt that a lonely and miserable death was the most likely outcome for me had I not been able to find sobriety through AA.
I can see how someone could feel they’re in the grips of a cult just from bad luck. AA being comprised of people and people with more than their share of emotional issues we have people who present themselves as leaders, who enjoy cultivating a following and try and impose their interpretation of AA on others. This happens all the time, everywhere and AA is no exception. We’re human and not without conflict.
There are no rules, no governing body that can sanction individuals who differ from each other. It is an amazing organization with the flimsiest of structure and has thrived from its inception.
As for the “faith” bias against AA, no one cares, it’s not a Christian thing, even though it was started by Christians and God is referenced in the literature and the steps. That kept me out too for about 9 years. I still do not practice any religion. It’s just not that big a deal.
‘Those who do not recover are people who cannot or will not completely give themselves to this simple program , usually men and women who aree constitutionally incapable of being honest with themselves.’ - Alcoholics Anonymous, page 58
It is the viewpoint of AA as a whole that the Program works if you work it. Conversely, if it disn’t work, you didn’t work it.
If it is the patient’s failure, it is also the patient’s success - the program or non-program they follow is irrelevant. ‘It’ does not work - the individual does.
On the contrary, AA claims that if you follow the program you will find God, who will help you stay sober.
I think there is a fundamental flaw for the purposes of recovery in telling anyone they have an incurable disease. It’s a hopeless proposition; it only works with the psyche of about 2% of the population.
I went to AA and NA. had problems with both alcohol and cocaine. Mostly I met new people to drink and smoke crack with.
Concerning both drugs, I did quit. But it wasn’t due to any of these meetings. Nor was it in close proximity in time. I quit when I got tired of it, plain and simple, and did not ever desire either in a meaningful way again.
What I did was figure out why I wanted drugs, and once I addressed that, I didn’t care about drugs anymore. This incurable disease stuff is utter bullshit. It exists mostly to encourage recidivism so that the drug treatment industry continues to profit.
My motto concerning drugs: “Never trust anyone whose stated goal is to put himself out of business.”
My other motto concerning drugs: “If drugs do not ruin your life, government is there to finish the job.”