![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 17 to 41 of 56. Go back in thread:
Posted by AuntieMel on November 2, 2005, at 17:00:36
In reply to Re: Non-12 Step, posted by mama141 on November 2, 2005, at 9:12:23
I'm not much of a 12 stepper, either, but I do go to a meeting occasionally (rarely, actually.)
I've got more than 2 years sober - and you could easily see me coming out of a liquor store, too. There is one down the road that is the only store that carries the kind of chocolate I like.
I've also bought wine for guests and for gifts.
Posted by verne on November 2, 2005, at 17:12:12
In reply to Re: Non-12 Step » mama141, posted by ClearSkies on November 2, 2005, at 13:41:46
Like you, I would often race to the liquor store (for me, beer-getting place) right after an AA meeting. Especially if they gave me a coin or I was celebrating a milestone like a week or month.
I've never seen so many people jazzed up on coffee and cigarettes, consumed with not-drinking. I tried to go to the non-smoking meetings, never having smoked myself. (except pot) But the non-smoking meetings were only once a week. (maybe that was a good thing and I drank less often)
For me sobriety became a lot easier after a spiritual experience. There really is more to the world than what we can see - I just don't have a name for it.
I don't have a name for a "higher power" - I don't even like that label - but can't deny something spiritual happened to me and not drinking got a whole lot easier. It's really beyond worldly comprehension and definitions.
One problem I see in discussions about anything spiritual is that talking about it reduces spirit to something tangible, something definable, squeezing something that can't be seen or measured, into something understandable and finite.
It's beyond reason and just needs to be experienced. That's where the letting go of the self's imagined "power", and surrendering everything - even reason - is just enough of a crack in the old paradigm for the light to penetrate the darkness.
Verne
Posted by alexandra_k on November 2, 2005, at 18:20:46
In reply to Re: Non-12 Step » ClearSkies, posted by verne on November 2, 2005, at 17:12:12
I'm wary of a lot more besides too...
I don't see how total abstinence is the one and only answer.
It may well be an answer that a person comes to, it may well be the best answer for that person but I don't see why that is considered to be the only answer.
(The reasoning I've heard is that one must admit one is completely powerless over the addiction - but I don't see why this is required either).
I also don't much like the ideas of counting off the days... Becuase then a relapse is seen as a failure (more to beat yourself up over) instead of seeing just how much you have reduced your intake and how proud you should be of your ability to manage your own affairs (YOU did it, not your higher power).
I dunno...
I guess teh AA folk came along when nobody else would work with people having troubles with addictive behaviours. They worked with people when nobody else would and so that is terrific.
But...
I think they need to move with the times rather
And realise there is more than one way to romeAnd I think the state needs to stop funding religious messages in the name of social services
And I think the state needs to stop taking some of those messages (ie about addiction being a disease when it is not - which is NOT to deny there is a heritable componant) when there is little empirical evidence to support that...
But anyhoo...
Posted by CleverGuy on November 2, 2005, at 20:07:44
In reply to Re: Non-12 Step, posted by alexandra_k on November 2, 2005, at 18:20:46
Well stated AK; as if from my own mouth. I posted some where up there something similar to Verne who had a "slip", relapse, whatever...after XX many days. To add, obsessing on other things like counting days, or coins, or meetings is still obsessing in my book. I didn't see many people at the AA meetings that weren't just as bad off as they were when drinking--hopped up on some good AA is what they were. Simply replacing your alcohol addiction with an AA addiction is just plain silly IMO. 593 three days equals 593 days you you were thinking about alcohol/drugs. Personally, I don't want to be still thinking about this 593 days from now. I hope I have successfully shown myself a better life without addiction, and won't need to.
You are exactly right AK: the government needs to quit funding this religious org and start putting that money into addction research and progressive therapy. It is as if the country has been brainwashed that AA is the only answer. As if there is no need to continue to aggressively explore all options. It really baffles me. Addiction is such a world wide problem with very little answers, and AA is not this cancer's cure. Yet, it is government sponsered, and I will be ferderally forced to listen to their non-sense in a few weeks. Just wacky.
LOL had to bring the government into it didn't you. Got me all riled up again. Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit sniffing glue.
Posted by alexandra_k on November 2, 2005, at 20:56:00
In reply to Re: Non-12 Step, posted by CleverGuy on November 2, 2005, at 20:07:44
LOL!
They have had really very good results with token economies.
Would you stay clean for a year for $10,000?
I bet you would be much more likely to ;-)
But some people protest the use of this strategy...
And think how much of your favourite poison $10,000 could buy????
(Thats just one example. There are other treatment programs out there - but they need more. Much much more.)
Posted by mama141 on November 3, 2005, at 9:41:22
In reply to Re: Non-12 Step, posted by alexandra_k on November 2, 2005, at 18:20:46
> I'm wary of a lot more besides too...
>
> I don't see how total abstinence is the one and only answer.
> I couldnt agree more!
--------------------------
> It may well be an answer that a person comes to, it may well be the best answer for that person but I don't see why that is considered to be the only answer.
> Agreed
> (The reasoning I've heard is that one must admit one is completely powerless over the addiction - but I don't see why this is required either).
> "powerlessness" is no more that an excuse for crappy behavior (IMHO)
-------------------------------------> I also don't much like the ideas of counting off the days... Becuase then a relapse is seen as a failure (more to beat yourself up over) instead of seeing just how much you have reduced your intake and how proud you should be of your ability to manage your own affairs (YOU did it, not your higher power).
> Oh how true, in my case at least. Once I stopped "12 stepping" I was able to have one glass of wine (and stop) without thinking --"I slipped! Now I have to go and confess everything" which invariably led to more drinks to kill the guilt!!
---------------------
> I dunno...
> Me either,
------------------
> I guess teh AA folk came along when nobody else would work with people having troubles with addictive behaviours. They worked with people when nobody else would and so that is terrific.
>
> But...
>
> I think they need to move with the times rather
> And realise there is more than one way to rome
>
> And I think the state needs to stop funding religious messages in the name of social services
>
> And I think the state needs to stop taking some of those messages (ie about addiction being a disease when it is not - which is NOT to deny there is a heritable componant) when there is little empirical evidence to support that...
> You bet!! (We may not all agree on the reasons but we all seem to have come to pretty much the same conclusions. What does that tell you?!)
The state sucks up to 12 step stuff bucause they
have more money tied up in "recovery" programs than in prevention (have you ever known "Just say no" to be effective?!) And AA and "rehab" groups have always been in bed together -- big bucks there too !! (ie Hazelden, Caron Foundation, Betty Ford)
There is big money to be made in the "treatment industry" people, but mainly if you do the "12step-2step", I know I worked that shill!!> ---------------------------
> But anyhoo...
Posted by AuntieMel on November 3, 2005, at 10:36:05
In reply to Re: Non-12 Step, posted by CleverGuy on November 2, 2005, at 20:07:44
A correction:
"the government needs to quit funding this religious org"
AA doesn't get a cent from the government or any other organization.
------
There are lots of things about AA that didn't/don't appeal to me.
But - they *do* have a higher success rate than any other program. It doesn't work for all people, granted, but it does work for a lot. And it was a very important part of my early sobriety, when I was totally clueless.
A lot depends on which group you find. The group I went to wasn't religeous and they weren't judgemental. At "chip time" they always asked if anyone had a "wet" one they wanted to trade for a "dry" one and anytime someone did they were applauded.
I was told my 'higher power' could be anything - even a doorknob. I chose a jade necklace that I would touch everytime I had a craving - to remind me of the good I was doing for myself.
The idea behind admitting you are powerless is that you are accepting that all the things you tried before have failed. It actually *gives* you power to admit that you have no power and it ISN'T your fault!
As for counting days - every day is a milestone and every day is a miracle. I never obsessed over the days, I celebrated them. And even if you have a slip no one can take those days away from you. They are XX more sober days than you had before.
Why will you "be ferderally forced to listen to their non-sense in a few weeks?"
Posted by alexandra_k on November 3, 2005, at 16:23:36
In reply to Re: Non-12 Step » CleverGuy, posted by AuntieMel on November 3, 2005, at 10:36:05
> "the government needs to quit funding this religious org"
> AA doesn't get a cent from the government or any other organization.The government does force people to AA / NA treatment programs BY LAW. Does the government pay for the person to attend by any chance?
> But - they *do* have a higher success rate than any other program.
Stats please. Sorry but... They have been saying this for how many years now? Studies are done all the time and I really would be very suprised if this is so. Even if it is true CBT has the highest success rate for treatment of mental illness too - but that doesn't mean it is suited to everyone. Also... What are the success rates? I've heard the relapse rates for people relapsing 6 months, 1 year, 5 years etc after AA / NA attendance. They are staggeringly high. Can't remember them off hand however.
>It doesn't work for all people, granted, but it does work for a lot. And it was a very important part of my early sobriety, when I was totally clueless.
Yes. They have helped a lot of people and I don't want to take that away from them. The danger is in their approach being fairly much the only option for a lot of people out there. And some of what they have to say... Is unsubstantiated... And can cause more harm than help.
> A lot depends on which group you find.True. But you still have the steps. You still have the stated mission and so on and so forth. It is that stuff that I'm objecting to.
> I was told my 'higher power' could be anything - even a doorknob. I chose a jade necklace that I would touch everytime I had a craving - to remind me of the good I was doing for myself.
How did you go with confessing your sins to your higher power? Did that variety of higher power make it tricky to do some of the later steps?
I think... The message they give... The message they say you HAVE TO GET (otherwise you will die of your disease - yes they say this) is that you are powerless and your higher power will save you.
> The idea behind admitting you are powerless is that you are accepting that all the things you tried before have failed.Well. The fact you are in the program means you have already done step one then...
>It actually *gives* you power to admit that you have no power and it ISN'T your fault!
Sorry - what isn't your fault?
Did someone chain you to a chair and force your drug of choice down your throat or up your arm or whatever?I agree that it isn't your fault that you jolly well LOVE whatever it is... I agree that your behaviour is UNDERSTANDABLE given your pain etc etc. But one does need to take responsibility... And that is ultimately what helped me to progress... Not accepting powerlessness but taking responsibility. IMO there is a difference...
> As for counting days - every day is a milestone and every day is a miracle.Yeah, but if you are thinking about your drug of choice every day (in order to count the days) then how much are you moving on from your addiction. Recovering from your addiction. Not obsessing about the stuff just living your life. AA / NA tells you you have a disease. That is to say you are ALWAYS an addict. It is possible for someone to be an addict but to NEVER use. I think that is conceptually confused. You alter your behaviour - and the problem is fixed. Thats a cure if anything is.
> Why will you "be ferderally forced to listen to their non-sense in a few weeks?"
Probably a treatment order...
Posted by verne on November 3, 2005, at 18:28:57
In reply to Re: Non-12 Step » AuntieMel, posted by alexandra_k on November 3, 2005, at 16:23:36
I have no will power. I'm weak and irresponsible. Surrender was the key for me.
Verne
Posted by alexandra_k on November 3, 2005, at 19:12:20
In reply to I'm Powerless, posted by verne on November 3, 2005, at 18:28:57
> I have no will power. I'm weak and irresponsible. Surrender was the key for me.
Surrender to what?
Is it about surrender or about faith in something... Faith in something that gives you the willpower to do it?
Posted by alexandra_k on November 4, 2005, at 4:11:37
In reply to I'm Powerless, posted by verne on November 3, 2005, at 18:28:57
> I have no will power. I'm weak and irresponsible. Surrender was the key for me.
I'm sorry Verne.
Really.
I take my last comment back...
And replace it with:Thats great. I think people should take whatever works for them and run with it :-)
You have been doing really well Verne. I know you had a bit of a slip... But I really hope you get back to what you were doing. However you manage to find that. Whatever you need to do.
Everybody has to find their own way...
At the end of the day.And who knows what that will be
And who knows why sometimes it works and why sometimes it doesn't seem to.I'm sorry.
Posted by ClearSkies on November 4, 2005, at 5:16:33
In reply to Re: I'm Powerless, posted by alexandra_k on November 4, 2005, at 4:11:37
Alexandra - you have made 2 apologies on the boards in one day. How do you feel about posting words you feel you must later apologize for?
What affect do you think those posts have on the others who read and post here, keeping in mind that these are public discussions and not private; and that others are interested in the subjects being discussed?
I hold my tongue lately. I write many responses to posts, and then do not confirm them, because I'm not looking for debate or argument, and feel that's what would result in my posting. It's stifling.
ClearSkies
Posted by mama141 on November 4, 2005, at 7:16:06
In reply to Apologies » alexandra_k, posted by ClearSkies on November 4, 2005, at 5:16:33
This has to be the best, basically most open discussion to come down the pike in a long time.Thanks guys and gals.
We have mentioned Rational Recovery, what other alternatives is anyone aware of? (religious, non religious, just not traditional 12 step) Mama
Posted by ClearSkies on November 4, 2005, at 8:12:48
In reply to Re: Apologies, posted by mama141 on November 4, 2005, at 7:16:06
Women For Sobriety. They offer online support and face to face meetings. They are non 12-step.
Posted by SLS on November 4, 2005, at 10:00:31
In reply to Re: Apologies, posted by mama141 on November 4, 2005, at 7:16:06
> This has to be the best, basically most open discussion to come down the pike in a long time.Thanks guys and gals.
> We have mentioned Rational Recovery, what other alternatives is anyone aware of? (religious, non religious, just not traditional 12 step) Mama?
I haven't read through it.
- Scott
Posted by SLS on November 4, 2005, at 10:28:54
In reply to Apologies » alexandra_k, posted by ClearSkies on November 4, 2005, at 5:16:33
> It's stifling.
I have felt stifled quite a few times in the past ever since Dr. Bob began implementing a civility policy. I sometimes get the urge to kick some *ss. I usually compose my posts in a word processor rather in the message box. It helps give me time to reconsider whether I want to actually submit it or not.
Often, I'm left with a sense of ambivalence as to whether I want to post or not. I usually act on my ambivalence by NOT posting until enough time passes that I feel more confident in making a decision. I often go back and edit my emotional posts so that they are not only civil, but communicate what I feel is important and relevant to the issue being discussed rather than directed at other participants personally.
It is a learning experience with a pretty steep curve if you've never been forced to interact with such stringent civility guidelines.
I hate apologizing. I would rather take the time to avoid writing things that place me in a position of having to do so. I still do apologize, though, when I become aware that I've been uncivil towards someone else. I don't always know in advance what is civil and what is not, so I often learn through trial and error. I think the key is to be as deliberative as possible during the composition and editing of a post, keeping civility in mind as a tool to maintain the relevance of the post to the issue being discussed.
I apologize in advance if this post contains comments that are either uncivil or otherwise irrelevant. I forgive anyone for doing the same.
:-)
- Scott
Posted by SLS on November 4, 2005, at 10:43:51
In reply to Re: I'm Powerless, posted by alexandra_k on November 4, 2005, at 4:11:37
I'm powerless to communicate without civility under the sovereign moderation of Dr. Bob. He doesn't miss a thing.
:-)
For some people, I think admitting their initial powerlessness over their drive to use is helpful. This is probably an accurate description of the predicament some addicts find themselves in before they have had the time to be treated and do the volumous amounts of work necessary to abstain. It makes for a good first step.
Just an observation.
- Scott
Posted by AuntieMel on November 4, 2005, at 12:48:14
In reply to Re: Non-12 Step » AuntieMel, posted by alexandra_k on November 3, 2005, at 16:23:36
Mind you, I'm not a blind AA follower, but....
"The government does force people to AA / NA treatment programs BY LAW. Does the government pay for the person to attend by any chance?"
AA/NA do not cost a nickel. Most people donate $1.00 at meetings they attend, but it isn't required. I've seen many people not donate.
--------------------------------------
"What are the success rates? I've heard the relapse rates for people relapsing 6 months, 1 year, 5 years etc after AA / NA attendance. They are staggeringly high."
Yes, they are. Relapse for other programs are equally high. I've heard that about 2% 'make it' through the first year, but my experience has been better than that. Meaning of the people who started around when I did, more than 2% made it that long.
But according to my psychiatrist, the 12 step programs have the highest percentage.
---------------------------------------------
"But you still have the steps. You still have the stated mission and so on and so forth. It is that stuff that I'm objecting to."
Again, it largely depends on the group. At the group I went to the guy that usually led the meetings said "you're here. That means the first 3 steps are done."
----------------------------------------------
"How did you go with confessing your sins to your higher power? Did that variety of higher power make it tricky to do some of the later steps?"
There is no time frame on the steps, and they don't have to be done in order. I've done some, and not others.
One of the sayings at the group - "take what you need and leave the rest" - I took to heart...
So, I didn't 'confess' my 'sins,' but I did take a good look at them.
-----------------------------------------------
"The message they say you HAVE TO GET (otherwise you will die of your disease - yes they say this) is that you are powerless and your higher power will save you."
I do believe you have to get the powerlessness thing first. Meaning you have to admit that, by yourself, you can't stop.
And I *do* believe that if you are an addict, you do have to quit or you will die.
Do you have to "stay quit?" I don't know. I'm a bit nervous to test that one yet.
Higher power? It can be your own soul.
-------------------------------------------------"Sorry - what isn't your fault?
Did someone chain you to a chair and force your drug of choice down your throat or up your arm or whatever?I agree that it isn't your fault that you jolly well LOVE whatever it is... I agree that your behaviour is UNDERSTANDABLE given your pain etc etc. But one does need to take responsibility... And that is ultimately what helped me to progress... Not accepting powerlessness but taking responsibility. IMO there is a difference...
------------
Maybe.
Yes, you do have the choice.
But it isn't your fault that you have the physiological makeup to become an addict. That is the part that you are powerless over. You aren't powerless over your behavior, just the fact that it's so damn hard to change it. And that you have physical as well as mental cravings.
Posted by alexandra_k on November 4, 2005, at 16:11:03
In reply to Apologies » alexandra_k, posted by ClearSkies on November 4, 2005, at 5:16:33
> Alexandra - you have made 2 apologies on the boards in one day. How do you feel about posting words you feel you must later apologize for?
Well. At the time I guess I feel okay about posting them - which is why I post them. Later, when I apologise I really am genuine. Its not so much that I wish I could take back what I have said. Its more that I wish I could have phrased my response a lot more sympathetically, open mindedly, etc.
> What affect do you think those posts have on the others who read and post here, keeping in mind that these are public discussions and not private; and that others are interested in the subjects being discussed?Well. I think different people respond differently. Some people find me to be something along the lines of a breath of fresh air. Some other peoples responses can be summarised something along the lines of AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGH
But I don't mean to hurt.
And when people feel hurt
belittled
like I have stomped on them
That is not my intention
And I'm prepared to work to changing my behaviour (best I can)
To minimise that.
> I hold my tongue lately.Well done.
That can be quite a feat.
Another option is to put it in word.
I do that a fair bit and then go over it and be very careful abotu how I phrase that.
I should have done that with a few of my posts from here and from politics yesterday.
But i didn't.And... I may well get a blocking.
>I write many responses to posts, and then do not confirm them, because I'm not looking for debate or argument, and feel that's what would result in my posting. It's stifling.
Do you look for debate or argument?
Is the implication being that thats what I'm doing?
Maybe also...
But never just.
I assure you of that.Debate / argument isn't personal...
It is what I do
It is part of who I amBut hurting people...
No, thats not supposed to be a part of that.
Posted by alexandra_k on November 4, 2005, at 17:38:42
In reply to Re: Apologies » ClearSkies, posted by alexandra_k on November 4, 2005, at 16:11:03
it can be stifling to not post things that lead to debate or argument...
that was what you were getting at?
yeah. it can be stifling to not post things because one shows more concern for how other people are likely to feel (regardless of whether that is more their issue than a problem with the posts objectively considered).
i won't do that.
i won't be silenced because of that.but when i could have said what i needed to say in a way that is less likely to upset people...
then yeah. i regret not having done that.
if you are opposed to 'argument' or 'debate' as a matter of principle...
you may just want to avoid my posts
because that is something i do sometimes
i need to get better at how i express myself
i need to get better at not upsetting people needlessly
but i'm not going to stop saying what i think
i'm not going to stop having arguments / debates with peopleif you don't like that about my posts than you best avoid them.
because i need to express myself for my sanity
and i refuse to alter that because of the feelings of others
moderate...
work towards comprimise...
yes
cease...
no
i'll be blocked for a year first...
Posted by alexandra_k on November 4, 2005, at 17:39:17
In reply to Re: Non-12 Step, posted by AuntieMel on November 4, 2005, at 12:48:14
i'm not ignoring you (here or on politics)
i'm thinking...;-)
Posted by CleverGuy on November 4, 2005, at 17:47:29
In reply to Re: Non-12 Step » AuntieMel, posted by alexandra_k on November 4, 2005, at 17:39:17
Wow. This thread is doing well IMO. What is wrong with debate anyhow. I haven't read any personal attacks, just lively discussion. I think it is wonderful.
Moderation Management is another option if anyone dare take it on. I am sure it is for some and not for others, as are all programs.
"Smart!" I believe was a spin-off of Rational Recovery. What the difference is between the two I am unaware. I have been busy lately, and haven't had much time for research. I say it again, however, that I think this debate is wonderful and much needed.
Posted by alexandra_k on November 4, 2005, at 18:35:37
In reply to Re: Non-12 Step, posted by AuntieMel on November 4, 2005, at 12:48:14
> "The government does force people to AA / NA treatment programs BY LAW. Does the government pay for the person to attend by any chance?"
> AA/NA do not cost a nickel. Most people donate $1.00 at meetings they attend, but it isn't required. I've seen many people not donate.
Okay. But I'm not talking about the meetings. I'm talking about inpatient treatment programs that people are required to attend BY LAW. I'll just talk about what I know of the way things go in New Zealand and you guys can decide whether this is true of the US or not...
Over here... Some people get court orders to attend inpatient treatment programs. And also: Ourpatient treatment programs. And also: detox. They have to do the program / detox by law. And the requirements on the programs / detox ALWAYS (no exceptions that I know of) involve AA / NA attendance. The programs / detox usually has some therapy componant too. That you HAVE to attend as part of the program. The therapy (individual and group) is AA / NA based. That means your therapist is trying to help you work through the steps. That is what therapy is about. The group therapy is in much the same vein.
You have to do therapy on 'relapse prevention'. That is based on the idea that total abstinence is the ONLY way to go and anything aside from that counts as a relapse which is unacceptable.
You have to do therapy on how you have this disease etc.
And thus... The New Zealand government is forcing people to go to something that IMO constitutes a religious program...
> But according to my psychiatrist, the 12 step programs have the highest percentage.
Okay. You might want to ask him about his source of information and how recent it is. I have heard they have had better success with token economies. Strictly speaking, that is psychological treatment rather then psychiatric treatment. He might not be aware of modern advances in psychological interventions. I'd be interested to look at the stats...
> "But you still have the steps. You still have the stated mission and so on and so forth. It is that stuff that I'm objecting to."
> Again, it largely depends on the group.I'm thinking here of the standard jargon that is read out at the beginning of every meeting. Or every meeting that I ever attended. I thought that was the standard way of opening meetings. That all AA / NA groups did this. I'm also opposed to many things that are said in the handbook / bible.
I appreciate that different people take that stuff differently. Some people insist on a literal interpretation. Other people are more common sensical (IMO) and take it with a grain of salt and take what works and don't push the official line. But it is the official line that concerns me.
> At the group I went to the guy that usually led the meetings said "you're here. That means the first 3 steps are done."
Okay. That sounds pretty common sensical to me...
But that is not the standard line.
I mean... If it was the standard line then why don't they just drop those steps (seeing as they have been done already). I remember being told that those first three... Were the ones people typically had the most trouble with....> "How did you go with confessing your sins to your higher power? Did that variety of higher power make it tricky to do some of the later steps?"
> There is no time frame on the steps, and they don't have to be done in order. I've done some, and not others.
Yeah. But once again... Not really the official line. Thats cool. I just wish the official line wasn't government funded. I wish it wasn't presented as the only option to recovery. I wish they would stop saying they are the 'best' option too... Because... Like I said... they have had good success with token economies and even if they are 'the best' so is CBT and yet (IMO) some people are more harmed than helped by it. ESPECIALLY when the AA / NA line doesn't seem to be working for them and yet they are told it is their only hope and there aren't any alternatives.
> Do you have to "stay quit?" I don't know. I'm a bit nervous to test that one yet.
I would say... That it would be preferable to give the stuff the heave ho altogether. But I don't believe this has to be the answer for everyone. I just think that it would be easier to avoid it altogether than attempt to moderate it (which hasn't worked so well thus far). like with chocolate... if you don't have any for a while you don't really crave it so much. but have a little bit and boy oh boy do you start to crave for more. why put yourself in that position? but that being said, some people manage to do this and i don't see why we should frown on them.
> Higher power? It can be your own soul.
Not on the official line. Your higher power has to be something 'other' than you. because 'you' are powerless and this 'other' being will save you. and you need to confess your sins to your higher power (officially). thus... according to the official line you are required to believe in a higher power who is 1) beneficient (wants to help you not drink / drug 2) has the power to stop you drinking / drugging 3) is interested in your confessing your sins.
isn't this higher power that you are required to believe in (or you will die of your disease) starting to appear increasingly christian?
according to the offical line.
but that is the official line.
and hence... it is preaching christianity (or christian like conception of god) and saying one HAS to do this in order to get better.
I don't believe the government should fund that.> I agree that it isn't your fault that you jolly well LOVE whatever it is... I agree that your behaviour is UNDERSTANDABLE given your pain etc etc. But one does need to take responsibility... And that is ultimately what helped me to progress... Not accepting powerlessness but taking responsibility. IMO there is a difference...
> Maybe.
> Yes, you do have the choice.
> But it isn't your fault that you have the physiological makeup to become an addict.
I agree. That is not your fault. I dont' think anybody would choose that for themself.
>That is the part that you are powerless over.
yes. same with having mental health issues. we don't choose those either. and yet... we still have to be responsible for our behaviour.
> You aren't powerless over your behavior, just the fact that it's so damn hard to change it. And that you have physical as well as mental cravings.
yeah. i agree. its not our fault its so damned hard to change it. its not our fault our bodies love it so. its not our fault that we have had crappy things happen in our lives. its not our fault that we hurt so much somtimes.
Posted by alexandra_k on November 4, 2005, at 18:44:05
In reply to Re: Non-12 Step » AuntieMel, posted by alexandra_k on November 4, 2005, at 18:35:37
but all those things that we are powerless over...
our higher power can't change them either.
our higher power doesn't change our brains
our higher power doesn't make our poison taste bad to uswhat we have power over is our behaviour.
and that is what we do have the power to change.
it is about finding the strength / motivation / faith / ability / whatever to do that.i think a problem with saying you are powerless and your higher power 'does it for you' is that you can't even take pride in *your own* accomplishment of taking control over your own behaviour.
every minute
every hour
every day
every yearyou manage not to drink / drug
because you manage to prioritise the long term consequences
over the short term consequencesis a triumph indeed
(if that is your goal of course)
and its something we have the power to learn to do
all of us
and when we do it...
*we* do itempowering...
i think it should be about empowering towards change
not depowering so some 'other' being can save you from your intrinsicly wicked sinful nature...but that is of course just my 2c.
Posted by mama141 on November 5, 2005, at 12:47:37
In reply to Re: Non-12 Step » AuntieMel, posted by alexandra_k on November 4, 2005, at 18:35:37
Just as a clairfication as to what one can be "forced to do or pay for". In many, if not all, states in the U.S. there is a program for liscensed professionals that monitors people, even when suspected of drinking, drug use, abuse, diverting etc (Doctors, pharmacists, nurses, technicians etc.) You have no choice - you must go to, and PAY for a rehab. Then attend X number of meetings a week for usually three to five years -- AND pee in a cup at random intervals. It's either that or lose ones liscense. In some cases this is true even for mental health issues. Usually these programs are covered by the name "Employee Assistance Program" and operated by the state liscensing board and are run by NON-professional nazi-like functionaries. In at least one state and maybe more, you have no appeal, and NO redress...just suspicion is enough! Refusal to submit means you lose your license -no ifs ands or buts!
> > "The government does force people to AA / NA treatment programs BY LAW. Does the government pay for the person to attend by any chance?"
>
> > AA/NA do not cost a nickel. Most people donate $1.00 at meetings they attend, but it isn't required. I've seen many people not donate.
>
> Okay. But I'm not talking about the meetings. I'm talking about inpatient treatment programs that people are required to attend BY LAW. I'll just talk about what I know of the way things go in New Zealand and you guys can decide whether this is true of the US or not...
>
> Over here... Some people get court orders to attend inpatient treatment programs. And also: Ourpatient treatment programs. And also: detox. They have to do the program / detox by law. And the requirements on the programs / detox ALWAYS (no exceptions that I know of) involve AA / NA attendance. The programs / detox usually has some therapy componant too. That you HAVE to attend as part of the program. The therapy (individual and group) is AA / NA based. That means your therapist is trying to help you work through the steps. That is what therapy is about. The group therapy is in much the same vein.
>
> You have to do therapy on 'relapse prevention'. That is based on the idea that total abstinence is the ONLY way to go and anything aside from that counts as a relapse which is unacceptable.
>
> You have to do therapy on how you have this disease etc.
>
> And thus... The New Zealand government is forcing people to go to something that IMO constitutes a religious program...
>
> > But according to my psychiatrist, the 12 step programs have the highest percentage.
>
> Okay. You might want to ask him about his source of information and how recent it is. I have heard they have had better success with token economies. Strictly speaking, that is psychological treatment rather then psychiatric treatment. He might not be aware of modern advances in psychological interventions. I'd be interested to look at the stats...
>
> > "But you still have the steps. You still have the stated mission and so on and so forth. It is that stuff that I'm objecting to."
>
> > Again, it largely depends on the group.
>
> I'm thinking here of the standard jargon that is read out at the beginning of every meeting. Or every meeting that I ever attended. I thought that was the standard way of opening meetings. That all AA / NA groups did this. I'm also opposed to many things that are said in the handbook / bible.
>
> I appreciate that different people take that stuff differently. Some people insist on a literal interpretation. Other people are more common sensical (IMO) and take it with a grain of salt and take what works and don't push the official line. But it is the official line that concerns me.
>
> > At the group I went to the guy that usually led the meetings said "you're here. That means the first 3 steps are done."
>
> Okay. That sounds pretty common sensical to me...
> But that is not the standard line.
> I mean... If it was the standard line then why don't they just drop those steps (seeing as they have been done already). I remember being told that those first three... Were the ones people typically had the most trouble with....
>
> > "How did you go with confessing your sins to your higher power? Did that variety of higher power make it tricky to do some of the later steps?"
>
> > There is no time frame on the steps, and they don't have to be done in order. I've done some, and not others.
>
> Yeah. But once again... Not really the official line. Thats cool. I just wish the official line wasn't government funded. I wish it wasn't presented as the only option to recovery. I wish they would stop saying they are the 'best' option too... Because... Like I said... they have had good success with token economies and even if they are 'the best' so is CBT and yet (IMO) some people are more harmed than helped by it. ESPECIALLY when the AA / NA line doesn't seem to be working for them and yet they are told it is their only hope and there aren't any alternatives.
>
> > Do you have to "stay quit?" I don't know. I'm a bit nervous to test that one yet.
>
> I would say... That it would be preferable to give the stuff the heave ho altogether. But I don't believe this has to be the answer for everyone. I just think that it would be easier to avoid it altogether than attempt to moderate it (which hasn't worked so well thus far). like with chocolate... if you don't have any for a while you don't really crave it so much. but have a little bit and boy oh boy do you start to crave for more. why put yourself in that position? but that being said, some people manage to do this and i don't see why we should frown on them.
>
> > Higher power? It can be your own soul.
>
> Not on the official line. Your higher power has to be something 'other' than you. because 'you' are powerless and this 'other' being will save you. and you need to confess your sins to your higher power (officially). thus... according to the official line you are required to believe in a higher power who is 1) beneficient (wants to help you not drink / drug 2) has the power to stop you drinking / drugging 3) is interested in your confessing your sins.
>
> isn't this higher power that you are required to believe in (or you will die of your disease) starting to appear increasingly christian?
> according to the offical line.
> but that is the official line.
> and hence... it is preaching christianity (or christian like conception of god) and saying one HAS to do this in order to get better.
> I don't believe the government should fund that.
>
> > I agree that it isn't your fault that you jolly well LOVE whatever it is... I agree that your behaviour is UNDERSTANDABLE given your pain etc etc. But one does need to take responsibility... And that is ultimately what helped me to progress... Not accepting powerlessness but taking responsibility. IMO there is a difference...
>
> > Maybe.
>
> > Yes, you do have the choice.
>
> > But it isn't your fault that you have the physiological makeup to become an addict.
>
> I agree. That is not your fault. I dont' think anybody would choose that for themself.
>
> >That is the part that you are powerless over.
>
> yes. same with having mental health issues. we don't choose those either. and yet... we still have to be responsible for our behaviour.
>
> > You aren't powerless over your behavior, just the fact that it's so damn hard to change it. And that you have physical as well as mental cravings.
>
> yeah. i agree. its not our fault its so damned hard to change it. its not our fault our bodies love it so. its not our fault that we have had crappy things happen in our lives. its not our fault that we hurt so much somtimes.
>
>
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Substance Use | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.