On the soapbox

On a website I visit, I noticed a thread about AA, with the expected bashing by those who think AA exludes drug addicts, and by those who have been put off by what they see as a "religion" in other guise in AA. I greatly value my AA membership, and while I can understand that some people don't "get it," I really think that sometimes they just don't WANT to get it. That way they can stay sicker longer.

I posted a response, and am reproducing it here, since I wasn't able to post anything original yesterday or this morning yet. (And I know the world is waiting with 'bated breath for my matchless prose!)

"Those who do not recover are those who cannot or will not give themselves to this simple program." The folks for whom AA has not worked, are those who have not worked AA. (Sorry for the antimetabole, I've been listening to political speeches too much recently.) Seems from reading some of the anti AA posts, not much has changed since those words were written.

Some AA old-timers do object to the inclusion of drugs in a speaker's "sharing," but I've never seen anyone driven out of a meeting by this objection. To my mind, yes there is an underlying difference between an addict and an alcoholic, and it has been touched on already in this thread. ANYONE can be drug addict. All you have to do is take drugs. But an alcoholic has a disease characterized by a peculiar "mental twist."

Alcohol consumption is just the way we try to treat our disease -- and it works for awhile until it kills us or destroys our lives and the lives of those who love us. Alcoholism DEMANDS treatment, one way or another. If we make it through the end stages of our drinking alive, we have to treat our alcoholism another way, and AA is an extremely, some would say the only, effective way of treating alcoholism.

Some people who take drugs and become addicted to them are also alcoholics. Some are not. Using AA to treat non-alcoholic drug addicts, is, in my opinion, futile. Using AA to treat people who are just heavy or problem drinkers is futile, too. AA is a program for treating people with alcoholism.

Perhaps if alcoholism had been named for those who discovered this treatment, if it were called Wilson's Disease or Silkworth Syndrome, it would be easier to understand that the substance being consumed is not the problem. The nature of the patient is the problem.

The substance, whether alcohol or alcohol in one of its other forms (drugs), needs to be removed before treatment can take hold. If the patient is a true alcoholic and truly works the program of AA, wonderful things will happen and recovery will occur. (Not cure, recovery.)

If a person is simply a heavy drinker or a drug addict whose family or society in the form of the penal system has insisted on his or her attending AA "classes," I doubt any lasting change will be effected. Just my theory. ("Who is convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.")

Personally, I get a kick out of newcomers who share at meetings by saying "hi, i'm 'x' and i'm an alcoholic-addict." Aside from being redundant, it's almost like they're saying, "I see your alcoholism and I raise you my drug addiction."

If they're true alcoholics and they are really done drinking, they may get the message and stick around and eventually identify as alcoholics, for whom drug-taking was only a part of the whole story. If they are not alcoholics and are only drug addicts, I don't think the program of AA will truly benefit them. It may keep them clean, and that is a wonderful thing in itself, but I doubt if it will bring them the benefits it will an alcoholic who "truly gives himself/herself to this simple program."

However, I could be wrong. I learned to say that in AA.