Special Pleading for Alchoholics Anonymous

[Dymanic]

I really find this all-or-nothing argument hard to credit. (Though if you believe it yourself, then by all means follow the wiser course).

For my part, I don't believe it for a second. Like thousands alcoholics who came before me, I feel quite confident not only that I could take a single drink without turning into a monster but that I could resume moderate drinking on a regular basis without having it turn into the disaster that drove me to AA all those years ago. It means precisely nothing that pretty much every single member who has tried this experiment, and made it back to deliver a report, reported that it did turn into a disaster for them. I can't image how there could be a more biased sample. The successful ones aren't likely to come back to report that, now are they? Not only that, but the fact that it didn't work for them doesn't mean that it couldn't work for me.

In fact, I might just go ahead and do that one day. Who knows? The benefits don't seem to justify the risks at this point, not the least reason being that I really don't want to drink, but there's no guarantee that a day won't come when I'll feel differently about that, and I've never promised otherwise.

All I know for sure is, it isn't going to be today.

 

[Dancing David]

A question.
Do you mean "If I have one drink, the amount of alcohol consumed will so reduce my self control / relax my inhibitions that I will have a second, leading to a chain reaction".

or

" There is a an uncontrollable craving for more after one".

or something else?

If I sat you in a chair in a lab (I've got a white coat and everything) and watch you down a shot of dry sherry- will you turn into a slavering monster, or will you just have to sit there for an hour till the desire for another fades?
I really find this all-or-nothing argument hard to credit. (Though if you believe it yourself, then by all means follow the wiser course).

No but IF he is like me, and I expose my self to my substance of choice/addiction. I will want to use again, and it will be every hard for me to stop. I suppose that I could but after years of trying to control my use, and finding that I couldn't, I found it was easier to avoid that first use.

That is why 'redrinking' strategies do not work for those who are dependant (they work on those who are abusers), be it biological predeisposition, conditionsing, whatecver. If I use serotonergic hallucinogens I will want to use them again and it is avery hard to fight the 'cravings'. It would probbaly be easier since I am on an SSRI, but I don't want to find out.

I can't say that the thoughts and feelings would not be a struggekl for weeks and months, it would not just be an hour after the first use has worn off, it was much longer than that. Which is why i avoid use.

 

[I Ratant]

A question.
Do you mean "If I have one drink, the amount of alcohol consumed will so reduce my self control / relax my inhibitions that I will have a second, leading to a chain reaction".

or

" There is a an uncontrollable craving for more after one".

or something else?

If I sat you in a chair in a lab (I've got a white coat and everything) and watch you down a shot of dry sherry- will you turn into a slavering monster, or will you just have to sit there for an hour till the desire for another fades?
I really find this all-or-nothing argument hard to credit. (Though if you believe it yourself, then by all means follow the wiser course).

.
We'll never know.

 

[orange31]

How would you compare AA with the Scientologist approach to addiction, i.e. : Narconon? Or Homeopathy? Or Acupuncture? Or Hypnotherapy? Is it better or worse and why?

Why compare? You use what works for you as an individual.
There's way too much heterogeneity involved in alcoholism to attempt controlled clinical trials, and what for?
2 things that AA addresses -
It seems most humans overcome chronic adversity by believing in something bigger than themselves. For most people, that's religious or quasi-religious, but it doesn't have to be. It can be restoring your own sense of honor, or commitment to dependents, etc.

The second is the social support network; like it or not, we are a social species.

It would be interesting to know how they apporach AA in oriental/Buddhist countries where the concept of 'higher power' is much more open and opaque.....?

---
You may also find this of interest- there's been a medicine around for decades called Antabuse, when you take it and drink, it brings on terrible cramps and nausea. So you can take it as a 'motivator' to not drink alcohol. It works well in the sense that few, if any, can drink thru it. You might think that as an effective, straightforward drug therapy, it would be widely chosen and used by those how have quit or those wishing to quit. But it's not.

 

[tyr_13]

Why compare? You use what works for you as an individual.
There's way too much heterogeneity involved in alcoholism to attempt controlled clinical trials, and what for?
2 things that AA addresses -
It seems most humans overcome chronic adversity by believing in something bigger than themselves. For most people, that's religious or quasi-religious, but it doesn't have to be. It can be restoring your own sense of honor, or commitment to dependents, etc.

The second is the social support network; like it or not, we are a social species.

It would be interesting to know how they apporach AA in oriental/Buddhist countries where the concept of 'higher power' is much more open and opaque.....?

---
You may also find this of interest- there's been a medicine around for decades called Antabuse, when you take it and drink, it brings on terrible cramps and nausea. So you can take it as a 'motivator' to not drink alcohol. It works well in the sense that few, if any, can drink thru it. You might think that as an effective, straightforward drug therapy, it would be widely chosen and used by those how have quit or those wishing to quit. But it's not.

Why compare? So that we can determine what is the method that works the best for the largest amount of people and put our backing behind that instead of forcing people to do something which doesn't work for them. What about the detrimental effects of putting your decision making in a 'higher power'? If there was a method that worked better, without the drawback of magical thinking or giving up the idea of individual responsibility, shouldn't that be the primary means used?

Saying that, 'most people' use one method to cope is a logical fallacy. Popular does not mean right, or best, or most efficient. Perhaps the reason that the effective, straightforward drug therapy isn't widely chosen is because people refuse to compare. Perhaps it is the better method but people (erroneous) believe that AA works better. Maybe it is because AA actively campaigned against the use of this much better treatment. We can't know unless we do compare.

Actually, they did it. The first six months of sobriety, I had no idea how to live sober. I depended on the knowledge and wisdom of those that had been there before me. Exactly what kind of "organization" do you think AA is? Are you under the impression that it exists to profit somehow? Below is the preamble that is read at the begging of every AA meeting.

"Alcoholics Anonymous is a fellowship of men and women who share their experience, strength and hope with each other that they may solve their common problem and help others to recover from alcoholism.

You found one way to live sober, the AA way. That does not mean it is the best, happiest, most successful way. That does not mean it is the only way. No one suggested to my knowledge that AA was out to make a money profit. Misguided maybe, but that doesn't mean profit-driven. What they gain is more newly like minded people, which they believe is a good thing. I'm not convinced.

Oh, and where is that success rate? I can personally name two people for who AA has failed, and they are the only two people I know (that I am aware of) that have an alcohol problem. Anecdotal? You bet. But that is all any of the AA supporters have offered.

 

[cgallaga]

Re: The OP. Considering the voluminous special pleading and shifting goal posts contained in most of the posts supporting AA in this very thread, I have to say that I agree that the argument for AA does contain all sorts of logical fallacy. That said it is the most prosperous and widespread "group" of people trying to recover, and in that, in certain circumstances it my be better than no help at all.

 

[godofpie]

Why compare? So that we can determine what is the method that works the best for the largest amount of people and put our backing behind that instead of forcing people to do something which doesn't work for them. What about the detrimental effects of putting your decision making in a 'higher power'? If there was a method that worked better, without the drawback of magical thinking or giving up the idea of individual responsibility, shouldn't that be the primary means used?

Saying that, 'most people' use one method to cope is a logical fallacy. Popular does not mean right, or best, or most efficient. Perhaps the reason that the effective, straightforward drug therapy isn't widely chosen is because people refuse to compare. Perhaps it is the better method but people (erroneous) believe that AA works better. Maybe it is because AA actively campaigned against the use of this much better treatment. We can't know unless we do compare.



You found one way to live sober, the AA way. That does not mean it is the best, happiest, most successful way. That does not mean it is the only way. No one suggested to my knowledge that AA was out to make a money profit. Misguided maybe, but that doesn't mean profit-driven. What they gain is more newly like minded people, which they believe is a good thing. I'm not convinced.

Oh, and where is that success rate? I can personally name two people for who AA has failed, and they are the only two people I know (that I am aware of) that have an alcohol problem. Anecdotal? You bet. But that is all any of the AA supporters have offered.

Are you familiar with term "resentment" as it pertains to AA? You might want to research that. I specifically addressed the points you are talking about. I said that AA is NOT the only way to sobriety and I do do not begrudge anyone with an addiction for following a different path. If you only know 2 drunks, you should probably get out more. AA is not like Scientology or Rational Recovery in that we do not advertise, we do not have infomercials and we gain members through attraction rather than promotion and we don't exist to make money. I personally could care less what some study would show. It would be like a study to prove that the sky is blue. I know the sky is blue and I don't care why it is blue. I point you to the preamble in my previous post. I think it stands on its own. And you want to talk about success rate? What are the parameters? Success to me is an addict or alcoholic not drinking or using for that day. Sometimes success is measured in hours and minutes, not days and years. One of the most important sayings I heard early in sobriety was take what you need and leave the rest. I think a fair amount of the AA approved literature is BS. You know what I do? I don't read it. I take what I need and leave the rest. Just like in this forum.

 

[tyr_13]

Are you familiar with term "resentment" as it pertains to AA? You might want to research that. I specifically addressed the points you are talking about. I said that AA is NOT the only way to sobriety and I do do not begrudge anyone with an addiction for following a different path. If you only know 2 drunks, you should probably get out more. AA is not like Scientology or Rational Recovery in that we do not advertise, we do not have infomercials and we gain members through attraction rather than promotion and we don't exist to make money. I personally could care less what some study would show. It would be like a study to prove that the sky is blue. I know the sky is blue and I don't care why it is blue. I point you to the preamble in my previous post. I think it stands on its own. And you want to talk about success rate? What are the parameters? Success to me is an addict or alcoholic not drinking or using for that day. Sometimes success is measured in hours and minutes, not days and years. One of the most important sayings I heard early in sobriety was take what you need and leave the rest. I think a fair amount of the AA approved literature is BS. You know what I do? I don't read it. I take what I need and leave the rest. Just like in this forum.

I know the actual use of the term resentment, and I don't particularly care how AA uses the term. I don't 'resent' AA, but I don't think it has proven it's case, that it works well, not that it can work. For example, one can put out a fire by using a squirt gun. That doesn't mean it works well.

I've already said that success could be defined any number of ways, but that AA chooses not to use any of them. AA seems to be specifically designed to make those in it believe it works, regardless of what actually goes on. This is evidenced by your analogy to the sky being blue. The sky is obviously blue, but AA does not obviously work for most people. Yet you believe it is so.

I said I only know two alcoholics, not drunks. I know plenty of drunks, but for one, 'alcoholic' is hard to define (harder than the term 'success') and their lives aren't 'controlled' or 'destroyed' by the drink.

Also, why do you think that not advertising (which of course, isn't true as AA does in fact have fliers all over the place, is advertised in churches, even billboards, etc.) makes it work better? How is this evidence? Why are you the only person bringing it up? Is that one of my 'points' that you specifically addressed? Good intentions does not make something more effective.

You yourself brought up an effective treatment, so why then do you argue that success cannot be defined, and that AA being more popular means it is more effective? Funny how that is a point you did not specifically address.

 

[Dymanic]

How would you compare AA with the Scientologist approach to addiction, i.e. : Narconon?

Narconon is a highly structured top-down organization closely affiliated with the church of Scientology. Several years ago, it made an (unsuccessful) effort to promote itself by offering a free anti-drug program to public schools in California.

By contrast, AA's traditions state that it should maintain a minimum of organizational structure; that authority flows from the bottom up; that it should decline outside contributions; that each group should be autonomous, that AA is not affiliated with any outside agency or enterprise; and that its public relations policy should be based on attraction rather than promotion.

As for actual methods of treatment, I can't claim much familiarity with Narconon's (something to do with vitamins?), but the others you mentioned (homeopathy, acupuncture, and hypnotherapy) appear to have something in common, that being that no particular effort is required on the part of the afflicted individual. Just lie back and relax while we zap you with some science (and never mind the controversy over whether what we're doing really is well supported scientifically). The easy approach, better living through science (in this case, chemistry), is exactly what got me in trouble in the first place.

Why compare? So that we can determine what is the method that works the best for the largest amount of people and put our backing behind that instead of forcing people to do something which doesn't work for them.

AA neither needs nor asks for "backing" from you or anyone else.

Popular does not mean right, or best, or most efficient.

AA doesn't claim to be any of those things.

Maybe it is because AA actively campaigned against the use of this much better treatment.

AA does not "campaign" for or against anything.

Here's a tip: if you don't like AA, don't go.

 

[GreyICE]

Seeing as AA seems to think success is continuing to go to meetings, then would that do? How about self-reported success? How about the way other methods use to define success? How about ANY measure? Maybe the ability to resist the urge to drink?

You are substantially misrepresenting AA here. AA does not define success as such. This argument would fall under the definition of a strawman.

How about failure rates? Compared to a sugar pill? Compared to other forms of treatment?

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118730605/abstract

Aims
This study examined the rates and predictors of 3-year remission, and subsequent 16-year relapse, among initially untreated individuals with alcohol use disorders who did not obtain help or who participated in treatment and/or Alcoholics Anonymous in the first year after recognizing their need for help.

Findings
Compared to individuals who obtained help, those who did not were less likely to achieve 3-year remission and subsequently were more likely to relapse. Less alcohol consumption and fewer drinking problems, more self-efficacy and less reliance on avoidance coping at baseline predicted 3-year remission; this was especially true of individuals who remitted without help. Among individuals who were remitted at 3 years, those who consumed more alcohol but were less likely to see their drinking as a significant problem, had less self-efficacy, and relied more on avoidance coping, were more likely to relapse by 16 years. These findings held for individuals who initially obtained help and for those who did not.

Compared to other forms of treatment the natural question is "Which other form of treatment?"

 

[Dymanic]

You are substantially misrepresenting AA here. AA does not define success as such. This argument would fall under the definition of a strawman.

Most of the above comments by tyr13 suggest that this is an individual who was already using the tip "don't go" even before I offered it -- but even a shot in the dark may find a target once in a while, and in all fairness, this one may have at least nicked the truth. In my opinion, it probably is reasonable to regard "continuing to go to meetings" as at least the de facto definition of "success" in AA (if it is assumed that "sober" is tacitly included somewhere in that). If there is a de jure definition, I don't know what it would be, nor upon what authority it would rest. (Since the AA traditions expressly state that authority resides with the "group conscience", they are effectively the same thing anyway.)

Seems to me that defining "success" is a little like defining "alcoholic". AA as a whole doesn't try to do that for the individual (though there certainly are individuals in AA who are not merely willing but eager to do so for others). Why then would it attempt to declare anyone a "success" or a "failure"? If you're satisfied with the results you're getting with whatever you're doing, then hey -- either come share your experience with us... or don't.

 

[Dancing David]

It would be very foolish to think thata ddiction has one 'best method' of treatment. There are best methods that might be used to help people who want to quit but no blankey system.

Here is the deal, AA is not the reason people get reffered to AA by the courts.

The courts are the reason people get reffered to AA by the courts and our effing society wants to bail out the millionaires and buy expensive military equipment, it wants to do all sorts of things, other than fund treatment.

AA is free for the courts, they don't have to pay. So whatever problem you may with AA, and gosh there are these huge stereotypes here, why not ask the court to fund alternatives?

The real problem is the use of alcohol and the social consequences. We could have a variety of dui groups and interventions, but that is low dog in the stack, we could have intensive probabtion for alcoholics who drive, we could have drug courts.

But that all costs money.

AA has it's issues (and I disagree with many of them, God and HP is the least of them), but they are not the ones reffering people. The courts are.

 

[Dancing David]

Most of the above comments by tyr13 suggest that this is an individual who was already using the tip "don't go" even before I offered it -- but even a shot in the dark may find a target once in a while, and in all fairness, this one may have at least nicked the truth. In my opinion, it probably is reasonable to regard "continuing to go to meetings" as at least the de facto definition of "success" in AA (if it is assumed that "sober" is tacitly included somewhere in that). If there is a de jure definition, I don't know what it would be, nor upon what authority it would rest. (Since the AA traditions expressly state that authority resides with the "group conscience", they are effectively the same thing anyway.)

Seems to me that defining "success" is a little like defining "alcoholic". AA as a whole doesn't try to do that for the individual (though there certainly are individuals in AA who are not merely willing but eager to do so for others). Why then would it attempt to declare anyone a "success" or a "failure"? If you're satisfied with the results you're getting with whatever you're doing, then hey -- either come share your experience with us... or don't.

Thank you, some people fight a shiboleth of their own creation. In larger town you can find religous meetings and you can find straight up DFD groups.

 

[tyr_13]

By contrast, AA's traditions state that it should maintain a minimum of organizational structure; that authority flows from the bottom up; that it should decline outside contributions; that each group should be autonomous, that AA is not affiliated with any outside agency or enterprise; and that its public relations policy should be based on attraction rather than promotion.

And that relates to the effectiveness how?

AA neither needs nor asks for "backing" from you or anyone else.

Did I say it was asking for backing? It certainly is receiving it from people such as yourself. It is also in the popular consciousness as the 'best' way to quit. Why are you characterizing my reservations with the effectiveness of AA as some sort of problem with it's organization? It gets backing without asking from many sources. That isn't an attack, but an observation.

AA doesn't claim to be any of those things.

But other people on these very boards sure do. AA supporters do. The fact that every AA groups doesn't matters little.

AA does not "campaign" for or against anything.

Yes, it did. I'm not about to say it was a widespread, or that it is some conspiracy to keep people coming to meetings, and they probably all thought it best, but they did.

Here's a tip: if you don't like AA, don't go.

[/QUOTE]

I don't drink, so I have no reason to go to AA. I've never been a drinker, let alone a problem drinker.

It would be very foolish to think thata ddiction has one 'best method' of treatment. There are best methods that might be used to help people who want to quit but no blankey system.

Well of course. People become addicted for a variety of reasons, so they need many different solutions, which is one reason why I have a problem with the popular conception that AA works well.

You are substantially misrepresenting AA here. AA does not define success as such. This argument would fall under the definition of a strawman.

Sorry, but it isn't. That is one way AA 'defines' (because it avoids definitions) success. Another would be keeping sober. Also, that 'argument' that you call a strawman was actually a question, as in, 'would it be an acceptable measure'. So not an argument at all.

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/j...30605/abstract

That isn't studying the effectiveness of AA, but of all types of treatment compared to no treatment. So to your question, "Which other forms of treatment," how about the ones studied in that study? How about other support groups that use different methods than AA? How about psychiatric treatment? How about things that are, you know, evidence based?

 

[cgallaga]

Of course the 12 traditions speak volumes about purpose and god.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelve_Traditions

http://www.aa-louisiana.org/tradlong.htm

 

[Dymanic]

And that relates to the effectiveness how?

It certainly seems related to our ability to evaluate the effectiveness of any program to identify what the implementing organization's goals are. Those of AA are clearly stated. Those of Scientology we can infer: their primary goal is to make money.

It is also in the popular consciousness as the 'best' way to quit.

Already stipulated to. I actually agree with you here, by the way. I'm not even convinced that there is any "best" way to quit.

It gets backing without asking from many sources.

Not quite sure what you're referring to there. Courts frequently order alcohol-related offenders to attend AA, a practice which is neither sanctioned nor encouraged by AA -- and cannot be, in accordance with its traditions (which, by the same token, also prohibits their being refused admission). Whether this qualifies as "backing" depends on your point of view. Not every one in AA regards the presence of these "court-carders" as a big plus, and often quote the tradition that extends membership to anyone with a desire to stop drinking. At the beginning one meeting I used to attend, the secretary would announce "anyone who doesn't want to be here and has a court card they need signed, bring it on up and I'll sign it right now, and you can just get the F*** out". I was with that idea back then, but now, I couldn't possibly care less one way or the other.

Yes, it did. I'm not about to say it was a widespread, or that it is some conspiracy to keep people coming to meetings, and they probably all thought it best, but they did.

Your whole beef here seems to have to do with unsupported assertions, yet you have not even attempted to present any evidence in support of this one: "Maybe it is because AA actively campaigned against the use of this much better treatment."

Feel free to go ahead and do that anytime.

I don't drink, so I have no reason to go to AA.

Yet your confident tone implies that you think there is some reason you should be regarded as knowledgeable about what AA is, what goes on there, and how effective it should be considered. Again, this is reminiscent of the advice on parenting so often seen being freely dispensed by individuals who have never raised a child.

 

[tyr_13]

Not quite sure what you're referring to there. Courts frequently order alcohol-related offenders to attend AA, a practice which is neither sanctioned nor encouraged by AA -- and cannot be, in accordance with its traditions (which, by the same token, also prohibits their being refused admission). Whether this qualifies as "backing" depends on your point of view. Not every one in AA regards the presence of these "court-carders" as a big plus, and often quote the tradition that extends membership to anyone with a desire to stop drinking. At the beginning one meeting I used to attend, the secretary would announce "anyone who doesn't want to be here and has a court card they need signed, bring it on up and I'll sign it right now, and you can just get the F*** out". I was with that idea back then, but now, I couldn't possibly care less one way or the other.

I'm not saying AA is to blame completely for this. Courts shouldn't be doing what they are doing, yet they are. They believe AA works, don't know or don't care that it is religious in foundation (even if some groups are not, the core of AA is completely religious, so AA without the religious aspect is more like other drinking problem support groups), and so they force people to go. I do call that backing, support, whatever.

Your whole beef here seems to have to do with unsupported assertions, yet you have not even attempted to present any evidence in support of this one: "Maybe it is because AA actively campaigned against the use of this much better treatment."

Feel free to go ahead and do that anytime.

My whole beef is that it is an old, religious based, non-evidence supported system that gets more credit than it deserves. As for being unsupported...
http://www.barefootsworld.net/aa-antabuse.html

That isn't the only one, as there are lots of other comments and news blurbs from people who run/support AA that is against not only that, but other treatment systems. Some AA groups actually support it however.
http://www.aa-uk.org.uk/alcoholics-anonymous-reviews/2006/01/long-term-antabuse-keeps-most.html

Also, people who quit on their own are 5% effective after two years. AA and other treatments range between 6-20%. Where is AA on that scale? Is it 6%? If so, most people should try other methods first before seeing if they are in the 99th percentile that can't quit on their own but are helped by AA.

Yet your confident tone implies that you think there is some reason you should be regarded as knowledgeable about what AA is, what goes on there, and how effective it should be considered. Again, this is reminiscent of the advice on parenting so often seen being freely dispensed by individuals who have never raised a child.

Confident tone? In text? Sorry if my tone is to you confident.

As for not being able to criticize AA because I don't go to meetings and don't drink, that's just silly. I'm not gay, have never participated in any homosexual acts, yet somehow I still know what those things are, and am fairly sure I wouldn't like them. I also don't have children, but that doesn't mean I can't make observations based on other information I do have. The reverse is equally a silly argument. Having raised children doesn't make you a parenting expert, being gay doesn't make you a gay sex expert (and I'm using the general 'you' as in 'one', I'm not calling you gay, as if anyone cares), and being a recovered/recovering alcoholic through AA doesn't make you an AA or alcoholism expert.

 

[godofpie]

I know the actual use of the term resentment, and I don't particularly care how AA uses the term. I don't 'resent' AA, but I don't think it has proven it's case, that it works well, not that it can work. For example, one can put out a fire by using a squirt gun. That doesn't mean it works well.

I've already said that success could be defined any number of ways, but that AA chooses not to use any of them. AA seems to be specifically designed to make those in it believe it works, regardless of what actually goes on. This is evidenced by your analogy to the sky being blue. The sky is obviously blue, but AA does not obviously work for most people. Yet you believe it is so.

I said I only know two alcoholics, not drunks. I know plenty of drunks, but for one, 'alcoholic' is hard to define (harder than the term 'success') and their lives aren't 'controlled' or 'destroyed' by the drink.

Also, why do you think that not advertising (which of course, isn't true as AA does in fact have fliers all over the place, is advertised in churches, even billboards, etc.) makes it work better? How is this evidence? Why are you the only person bringing it up? Is that one of my 'points' that you specifically addressed? Good intentions does not make something more effective.

You yourself brought up an effective treatment, so why then do you argue that success cannot be defined, and that AA being more popular means it is more effective? Funny how that is a point you did not specifically address.

Printing fliers is advertising? How do you figure? Churches, mental health facilities, and other organizations solicit us for info. We do not go door to door like some kind of Jehovah's witness. How did the 2 "alcoholics" you know get sober? Are they still sober? I didn't say success couldn't be defined, I asked you how you wanted to define it.
We have a chip system in our group and mark our success by time sober, initially. Have you read the 12 steps and the 12 traditions that were linked to earlier? Did you read the preamble that I quoted? You seem to be under the impression that AA is some "organized" organization. We are not. There is not some board or overseeing body you could address to seek permission to perform a study. It goes against the entire principle of anonymity. I would like to mention that my sobriety started in detox at the hospital and then as a part of a 28 day outpatient program at that same hospital. I also went to AA meetings everyday during that time. I should mention that I have not attended AA meetings regularly in years. If you were seriously interested in pursing some kind of study, I would think the treatment centers would be the place to start.

 

[Dymanic]

That isn't the only one, as there are lots of other comments and news blurbs from people who run/support AA that is against not only that, but other treatment systems. Some AA groups actually support it however.

This doesn't seem to be getting through to you, but I'm willing to give it about one more try. Maybe bold text will help. Alcoholics Anonymous does not take any position whatsoever on such things. No individual has the authority to speak for AA, and neither does any AA group. That groups are autonomous means that if they take a vote and decide to do ring-around-the-rosy instead of the serentiy prayer, nobody cares. But if they decide to take out a full-page ad endorsing a candidate for mayor, that's different, because it "affects other groups or AA as a whole". I don't know what it was that gave you the impression that AA has "actively campaigned" either for or against the use of other treatments or anything else, but if the pages you linked were your 'evidence', it looks like you may be rather prone to misinterpreting what you read. One was basically just the ramblings of some guy, and the other was part of a (rather large) collection of news articles apparently deemed of possible interest to people in recovery. You apparently inferred that providing access to that information constituted endorsement of the positions taken by the articles themselves, and that's a mistake only a person unfamiliar with AA would make.

being a recovered/recovering alcoholic through AA doesn't make you an AA or alcoholism expert.

No particular expertise is required here. You are blatantly misrepresenting a position taken by an entity you clearly know very little about, and the only course of study required to recognize that is the few minutes it would take to give the 12 traditions of Alcoholics Anonymous a careful read. If you were genuinely interested in what AA does and doesn't do, you'd have done that already.

 

[GreyICE]

That isn't studying the effectiveness of AA, but of all types of treatment compared to no treatment. So to your question, "Which other forms of treatment," how about the ones studied in that study? How about other support groups that use different methods than AA? How about psychiatric treatment? How about things that are, you know, evidence based?

How about them? You are the one making the claim that AA is on the low side of this study. So how do they do? Are they on the high side or the low side? Are they significantly on the low side, or are all the methods roughly comperable?