Nightwatch

deleted..................

Nice to see you back, JR. I wanted to address what you wrote about SMART Recovery, as follows: I cannot speak with direct knowledge of SMART or other "programs" but, from what I do know, I cannot see much recognition of the distinction between "wanting to quit" and "wanting to want to quit". The entire SMART program is structured around the Stages of Change theory, which means that it actually does make a distinction between wanting to quit and wanting to want to quit. "Wanting to want" would correlate to the contemplation stage, where you are thinking about it but aren't committed. For people in this phase, SMART uses a tool called a cost-benefit analysis (essentially a list of pros and cons) to assist people in seeing the benefits of quitting as opposed to continuing to use. "Wanting to quit" correlates to the action stage, where you've made up your mind to move forward with change. Here, SMART has tools for helping people get through the actual quitting process--primarily tools to assist in coping with urges. Hope this helps.

deleted.............

deleted...............

Deleted by poster

deleted..............

deleted........

Deleted by poster.

Deleted by poster.

deleted..............

deleted by poster

I think folks are missing something important here. This particular thread really has nothing to do with debating the merits of AA; it was clearly intended to provoke a particular reaction. Since that reaction hasn't been forthcoming, personal insults are being utilized. I'm not hurt. I'm simply not willing to participate in this. Claire

For the record, this is what I wrote, and what Tony is mischaracterizing: Over my nine years of AA membership, I witnessed many instances of individuals being advised or ordered not to take medication. With respect to addictive medications, such as pain killers (OxyContin, Percocet, etc.) and tranquilizers (Valium, Ativan) the advice was typically never to take these medications at all, under any circumstances, because the risk of relapse was too high. Indeed, there is no doubt that there IS a risk of becoming addicted to addictive medications, so a cautionary tone regarding such medications is certainly appropriate. The problem is with the black and white prohibition: the notion that such medications are NEVER appropriate, under ANY circumstances, and that AA members who have no medical training are in a better position to make this judgment than the individual sufferer in conjunction with his or her doctor. I should note that I am aware of instances in which the prohibition against taking pain meds led to a relapse on alcohol. With respect to psychiatric medications....here, prohibitions against taking these meds are not universal. I recently read a study which found that approximately 12% of AA members do not "believe in" psych meds and would order their sponsees to stop taking them. I think this percentage is fairly accurate. Although perhaps 12% doesn't seem alarming, it means that a newcomer with a mental illness has a better than a 1 in 10 chance of winding up with such a person as his or her sponsor. Given that approximately half of AA members have some form of co-occurring mental illness (problems ranging from depression to schizophrenia) this is a real problem. I have written about this before, but the experience of one young woman I knew in AA was instrumental in my decision to leave the program. This young woman had been abstinent from alcohol for 7 years. She was diagnosed with bi-polar disorder and was prescribed medications by her treating psychiatrist. Her sponsor insisted that the diagnosis was wrong, that the sponsee was simply not spiritually fit, and ordered the sponsee to stop taking the meds. The sponsee followed this directive (another problem: people following their sponsor's advice, no matter how bad it is). Predictably, the young woman's now-untreated bi-polar disorder soon returned in full swing, and she relapsed. I was among the group of women who took her to the hospital following her relapse (she was extremely ill and required hospitalization for several days) and following the experience determined to talk to the sponsor who had given this advice. The astonishing thing about this conversation was the ignorance displayed by the sponsor. Even after her sponsee had relapsed and ended up in the hospital due to her horrific advice, the woman was unmoved, insisting that the problem was not bi-polar disorder but her sponsee's inability to be "rigorously honest." This was not the sole reason for my decision to leave the program. There were other factors, including the presence of unchecked sexual predators in the program and my increasing awareness of large, abusive factions growing up in the fellowship (the Pacific Group, the Midtown Group) and nothing being done to stop it. But it was one reason I came to the conclusion that I could no longer be affiliated with a group that claims to do so much good....but which in fact does so much harm. Claire

Deleted by poster

Tony: If I made a mistake, I am sorry. I thought the "unsigned" flame on the comment section was yours; if you say it wasn't, I take you at your word. However, it seems pretty clear that your objective in starting this thread was to antagonize others into engaging in a mean-spirited debate. While I am not averse to debate in general (as others can attest) I am not going to go down this road, and I encourage others to resist the impulse as well. Claire