to consider aa a dangerous cult?

[Kirkers]

I am ready to be attacked by cult members.

I have read 'theorangepapers' online which is very well researched, and 'twelve step horror stories' (also available to read online) and they prove to me (on top of my own experience) that aa does much more harm than good. In every proper, conrolled experiment aa produces worse results than any other treatment, including doing nothing. It is unquestionably a cult(Google, 'is aa a cult'). Yet 93% (I am not sure about that figure, sorry) of treatment centres follow the same model. That would be the £10 billion treatment industry.

I hope this isn't too off topic for mumsnet. They do involved children too. It is awful.

I first came to mumsnet following the Julie/Jake Myerson thread. The detective work that went on was phenonmenal. Is there anyone out there breastfeeding or too pregnant to move who could look into the orange papers and tell me I'm not Erin bigchest Eronovich.

This is an absolutely genuine request for feedback from people who are prepared to consider the actual black and white evidence of this extraordinarily powerful organisation.

Thanks.

I'mSoNotTelling I haven't asserted anywhere that counselling is a panacea nor indeed that it is the only or best means of treating addiction.

I'm merely pointing out that imo addiction is symptomatic of early wounding. That is what my theoretical training and experience at work have lead me to believe. That is not to say that ergo the only route to take is counselling. In fact, as I outlined I consider abstinence whether through a programme such as AA or via other means a crucial step. And yes, it can be the only step. Certainly therapy doesn't work if you're chemically mood altered!!!

Ummm, I don't agree with the word "cult" (and apologies - this has probably been covered, but there are too many posts to read them all).

Cults by definition separate a person from their friends and families, erase their self-identities, and take their money. On a purely technical level, 12-step programmes don't do this.

I think the problem with 12-step programmes comes when their tenets are misinterpreted and used by certain members to push their own agendas and to control others. Then, yes, certainly, they can be hugely damaging. But I don't believe that that is the spirit in which they are intended to operate.

I have read the Orange Papers - a few years ago, admittedly; and I see appalling abuse of 12-step programmes to manipulate others. I also see, however, a lot of disgruntled ex-AA members for whom the programme simply didn't work (and let's face it - there is no cure-all when we're talking about addiction), and who then project that disappointment and rage onto an organisation that, rightly, won't defend itself.

I think it's a matter of separating the shit from the shinola, and reading anything with discernment.

Have just read through all of her posts and have to agree with a lot of what Devendra is saying.

However, I do know people that have had their lives turned around by 12 steps, abstain and therefore limit the damage they cause to other.

They have NOT however addressed the core issue, and the addiction does present elsewhere. Exercise addiction or workaholism can be argued as infinitely preferable in terms of harm to loved ones though.

That for me is the problem: 12 steps addresses a symptomatic behaviour, but not the cause. It actually means that people DON'T address the cause. But they function and they live their lives and don't die as young and you can't underestimate the importance of that.

So you think that everyone who abuses substances or is dependent, has psychological problems and that they are the cause of the addiction?

It can never be a straightforward chemical dependency?

That all the people on this thread who have simply stopped whatever it was they were doing and have said that they are happy and free, are simply "functioning"?

Kirkers ... having read rather more of the thread, I feel that your posts fit into the "methinks the lady protesteth too much" category. Do you have a problem with alcohol?

Hi peeps

I have worked in a UK-based, 12 step treatment centre for alcoholics for a few years now. I have also just had a good look at the Orange Papers.

My opinion is that anybody who has any extreme view on AA is not entirely emotionally healthy. Anybody who hates it with a passion needs to question their own motives, as does anybody who is a so called 'AA-Nazi' (thats one of the evangelistic ones to you and me)

Somebody on this thread said that AA is about people sitting around drinking tea and sharing stories. That is about right- and I don't know about the rest of you but that is what I do most times I go and meet my friends. (although I don't talk about alcoholism obviously)

People with alcoholism can feel very lonely and AA groups are a good place to go where everyone is in exactly the same boat- so it's less lonely. For people who have used alcohol for years as a way to deal with their emotions, once the alcohol is gone the friends they confide in may be the healthiest way to deal with these emotions.

Also, AA varies from group-to-group. Some are open, friendly, with a good vibe. Some are rigid and controlling. People who have a bad experience of AA do get scared off, but it doesn't mean we should assume that all meetings are like the one our loved one went to. Many people in recovery who I know went to various meetings until they found one they liked. And if it worked for them, well then thats good isn't it?

Somebody sober- no matter how evangelical or misunderstood- is much healthier, safer and less annoying than somebody drunk. I really hope everyone agrees with that!!

But if somebody is going to relapse they are going to do it regardless of the support they are getting. They could have the best support in the world and still relapse because at the end of the day it is a personal choice and we have to respect that.

I guess maybe the question I would ask is not "Is AA a cult?" but "Does my alcoholic loved one honestly believe that AA is helping him/ her?"

...and if the answer is yes, well then it's great they are taking action- the very best of luck to them

"So you think that everyone who abuses substances or is dependent, has psychological problems and that they are the cause of the addiction?"

Occasional abuse and dependency are two different things as I am sure you know.

"It can never be a straightforward chemical dependency?"

A person addicted to cigarettes is chemically dependent. Ditto caffeine addiction. A serious addiction to a mood altering substance such as alcohol has it's roots in early trauma/wounding. I believe this to be true in the vast majority if not all cases.

"That all the people on this thread who have simply stopped whatever it was they were doing and have said that they are happy and free, are simply "functioning"?"

If you are asking whether I believe that people suffering from severe emotional wounds can live rich and fulfilling lives the answer is yes.

Is the OP around?

hf - she vanished in the afternoon at some point. I thought she was in a different time zone, but some posts suggest she's in the UK. So not a clue where she is....

The Boss - thanks. Just very strange to post this.

I think there are a lot of deeper issues that this post suggests at first glance. I for one am rather worried about the OP....

sophable you seem a little evasive.

Ok I will rephrase my first quesiton to: So you think that everyone who is dependent on a substance, has psychological problems and that they are the cause of the addiction?

The second question you answered, yes there must be a psychological problem.

The third question you answer "If you are asking whether I believe that people suffering from severe emotional wounds can live rich and fulfilling lives the answer is yes."

That is not what I asked. I asked: whether you thought "That all the people on this thread who have simply stopped whatever it was they were doing and have said that they are happy and free, are simply "functioning"?"

Dp not damaged just addicted

TBOM have you seen the other thread from last year?

ISNT i don't feel i'm being evasive at all.

once again.

I answered your rephrased question with my last answer. chemical dependency is not the same as severe self destructive addiction. Do I think that an alcoholic that regularly drinks to unconsciousness, emotionally and physically abuses themselves and their loved ones through drink, behaves in a way that is self damaging regularly through drink has a 'straight chemical addiction'? Absolutely not.

And clearly, my previous answer means that I do not think that people that consider themselves happy are 'merely functioning'. I never prefixed functioning with merely btw, that's yours.

ISNT - have read all of her posts. TBH, I strongly suspect she's in serious denial, but I'm tryinf to remember that she's a real person with real issues, and whatever they are, she's posting for a reason. Trying not to judge too much, IYKWIM.

"Do I think that an alcoholic that regularly drinks to unconsciousness, emotionally and physically abuses themselves and their loved ones through drink, behaves in a way that is self damaging regularly through drink has a 'straight chemical addiction'?"

But not all alcoholism presents itself in this way. Not all alcoholics behave like this.

As for the other.

You said "That for me is the problem: 12 steps addresses a symptomatic behaviour, but not the cause. It actually means that people DON'T address the cause. But they function and they live their lives and don't die as young and you can't underestimate the importance of that."

which sounds like "simply functioning" to me.

So how about another go at answering the question.

TBOM yes there is obviously something else going on with the OP with all of this. it is worrying.

Hold on sophable you are doing that thing where you gradually shift what you say. Your original post said "to my mind, all addicts are wounded, the addiction is a symptom of that wound and a treatment programme that doesn't address these wounds addresses the symptom not the problem."

You did not talk about "severe self destructive addiction", simply addiction. All addicts. You did not classify them into type, or differentiate between people with underlying problems or chemical dependence.

You simply said all addicts are wounded.

whoooah! i'm having a very spooky mn experience where I can see a reply (or just post) from ISNT but when i click in the thread I can't see it!!!

that was a mistake. I wrote that in the context of a thread about AA, I think it is probable that most people that get to the point of engaging seriously with a 12 step problem have an addiction that has had fairly seriously damaging consequences both to themselves and potentially their loved ones.

I think you probably know that? If not, I apologise for not being clear enough.

[[ Oopsiedaisy... just told DH that he should consider himself lucky he didn't get enrolled into a cult, his dear wife chose nice docile RAC instead.
I is doofus.]]

I engaged with services because I identified a behaviour that I did not like and I wanted to put a stop to it. Much as I gave up smoking.

The people I contacted made the same assumptions that you make re. people seeking help which was a total bloody disaster.

After that experience, and having talked at length with others on MN who have also just quit, I am of the strong belief that this idea that people who seek help MUST be very far gone, and that anyone with an addiction MUST have psychological issues, is wrong. Devendra said that people who are addicted to alcohol have always been danaged when children, most likely through sexual abuse. I know you are not her, but your post chimed with hers and it was interesting to note that you both work in the field.

Surely an understanding that everyone is different, and that while some addicts have been abused etc some have fallen into it by accident. And that while counselling and things are helpful for some people, others prefer a more practical and less talky approach.

One size fits all, and assumptions about people's motivations is surely a simplistic approach. However the idea is self fulfilling, as I imagine that most people have had something bad happen to them at some point in their lives. However diggin to find something and then pinning problems on it is not necessarily correct - as the bad thing may not actually be causing any problems at all. IYSWIM.

I am not trying to argue, simply understand. It certainly gives an insight into why organisations for addiction support sometimes behave as they do.

I also think it quite a tactless thing to say (mainly what devendra said though) on a thread such as this. I would not expect someone who works in this field to wander into a thread full of ex-addicts and say "you are all damaged and I am a professional in this field" but that is what happened.

devendra didn't come back but I wanted to get that off my chest, I think you posting in teh same vein put my hackles back up.

ISNT i'm sorry you had a bad experience. I do not for a second believe that therapy is for everyone. nor do i believe that it works for everyone.

I think that the word damaged is less appropriate than wounded. damaged implies some irrevocable less than status.

fwiw, I think most of us are wounded to one degree or other. and I believe in everyone's right not to explore that!

I don't agree with you that woundedness is something to be ashamed of, which I think a lot of your posts imply.