I don't want to seem "anti-AA" or "anti-" anything really. I really AM all for anything that works for other people.

But it can't be ignored that AA just doesn't work for a vast majority. I live in a very famous American city, also called "Sin City". You guessed it.

Reno and Las Vegas account for literally, close to 15,000 AA meetings per week. (And if you timed it right, you could probably hit the most popular ones, every hour of every day, for 90 days, thus coming pretty damn close to literally living the AA method 24/7 for 90 days. LOL)

Carson City is our capital and a fairly small city of about 75,000 (maybe slightly higher.) Even in Carson City, there is literally 700 meetings A WEEK. Yes! A WEEK! That's 100 meetings a day. And people are failing to maintain sobriety here by the thousands. Obviously, AA works for many people or these meetings would not exist. And I applaud them!

And all the same people are in and out, retreads, reverts, relapsers, all in the same cycle, all in the same meetings.
Literally, hundreds (thousands if counting statewide) of DUI arrests (including alcohol AND narcotic/drug related) are made every week, if not per DAY, in our state. Nevada is the drunkest state in the Union --- we made the list TWICE IN THE SAME SURVEY! LOL!
http://www.ktnv.com/Global/story.asp?S=11936076

Still, I can't argue with the numbers. Most, if not all of us who attend AA in Nevada WILL relapse. It's not about IF, it's about WHEN. And I can't help but wonder why and although of course, the 24/7 availability (even FREE alcohol if you are gambling, also an addiction and a recognized disorder) accounts for some of it, but I really think it is because the core philosophy of AA/NA/12 steps just doesn't work for most people.
And then I wonder why...and I come up with the following passing notions, incomplete as they may be, but I offer them for anyone else in case they were wondering the same thing:

1. Even if you are a person of "faith" for whom a "higher power" is no problem, the "god" of AA is a pretty petty, vengeful, basic people hater. According to AA, the drunk is responsible for all drinking because of his "disease" which makes him/her a pathetic creature, totally depraved and "powerless" over alcohol. Well, what kind of "loving God" would create humans with such a basic and FATAL design flaw??? A people-hater, that's Who! This sort of idea finds its fullest expression in Calvinist theology, a sect of Christianity that, without going into a lot of unwanted detail, teaches that people are "BAD AND DEPRAVED" AND SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF THEIR EXISTENCE AND GOD HATES THEIR SIN SO MUCH THAT HE DEMANDS BLOOD SACRIFICIES AND ALL SORTS OF EXISTENTIAL CRAP. (This especially goes for sex. God really hates sex and the human body is "dirty".) As an aside, this sort of theology is really debateable for "Christians". It really wasn't taught widely until John Calvin/Protestant Reformation and if it was, it was usually associated with the Gnostics and Mannicheans, for those who are interested in that sort of thing. It has never been associated with traditional/historical Christianity, although I realize many who are opposed to Christianity might want to debate that. In short, this is a repeat of the rejection of humanity, (and by extension, the Incarnation of Christ) by God, which makes no sense, since He is presumably the Creator AND the Incarnation. LOL! In AA, the "sober" are the "elect of Christ" and God rewards your existence with sobriety, and punishes others because he pre-destined them to be that way. If you're not "sober" it's because "your not working the program, you are inherently depraved and flawed, and thus, it is your own FAULT". WHAT THE F? That is, in essence, the core of Calvinist theology in the Christian world and it finds perfect expression in AA/NA.

2. AA teaches the "hopeless, incurable disease model". I have heard AA people even say that even if the "magic pill" was availaable that they would NEVER take it. This sort of closed minded thinking really scares the hell out of me. If certain scientists/physcians had felt the same way, we would not have life saving drugs and surgical procedures today. The medievial mindset of AA/NA/12 steps really scares me in its archaic refusal to admit other evidence.
It also leads to the branding of "heretics" when people who "fail" in AA or NA, dare to try other alternative methods.Some of the cynicism is understandable in light of the many publicized "cancer treatments" that have in fact KILLED many patients who sought them. Apricot pit treatments in Mexico come to mind, as well as human urine injections in Romania. To equate the Sinclair method with those "treatments" is really an absurd comparison and shows a lack of scholarship in AA. I find that lack of scholarship TERRIFYING. Blind obedience to a method that can only show a 15 percent success rate is just plain idiotic. Slavish devotion to a philosophy that at it's core, hates human beings and treats them as "hopeless" is not very encouraging and as we all know, core beliefs about ourselves do in fact affect medical treatments in many other areas of life especially psychology/ psychiatry. Why not alcoholism? Because AA says so? That's not good enough for me and shouldn't be good enough for anyone who loves themselves and loves other people and wants sobriety.

3. AA does not value scholarship and education. In fact, it prides itself in "stripping" groups of individuals of their individuality and putting everyone on an "equal" footing. I have heard people with a 3 rd grade education "lecture" people who were clearly "above" them in terms of knowledge, experience and depth of feeling on "sobriety" and "what it takes". This sort of reverse condescension is insulting, and anti-thetical to true equality. Ya gotta love the amount of pride it would take for someone to actually do this.

People are not lab rats and they don't suffer from "sameness". Human beings, as products of their DNA and cultural conditioning, suffer from its exact opposite: individuality.
That individuality is at once at odds, with the idea that "it works if you work it" and similar redundant platitudes that at bottom, are really meaningless, and at best, unhelpful in any deep or philosophical way. Every platitude or "tradition" I've ever heard at AA (all contained in the Big Book) can be dissected as morally, and philosophically meaningless. In short, AA punishes people for being imperfect organisms that suffer from individuality. That's just...well...sad!
And tragic for those who continue in the cycle of abuse and recovery, abuse and recovery, abuse and recovery. Worse still for their loved ones and families who continue to hope in the placebo that we know as AA.

To return to my own journey, I want to say I am really grateful to find this site and to be learning mroe about the Sinclair method. Although I too, believe in a "higher power", I certainly believe in a gracious God that would give the gift of science to humanity and through that, the answer and cure for addiction. I don't believe that God abandons us. HMO's and PPO's have done that, and often in His name, however.

In all, trying to get sober in Vegas, is sort of like being invited for a sleep over at Brad Pitt's house. Naked. With no locks on the doors. And then issuing everyone "mandatory" chastity belts. Even if you wear the belt, someone is bound to blame YOU for having an orgasm.
Best wishes to all, and many thanks for letting me vent here.

--pyrata

You're preaching to the choir

If NAL ends up working for you, consider mentioning that at an AA meeting.

Okay, maybe so...but it did help to write all that out for the first time. These are things that have really bugged for 13 years of being in and out of AA. I've never gone to "rehab" but the horror stories I've heard are enough to make me want/wish for death if it ever came to that choice. Seriously. I have an acquaintenance who just got out of a nine week program in Elko. There's a blank-ness to her "personality" since she got home. It's terrifying.

Deary Pyrata:

I don't know you, but based upon the above, I think I love you.

Could not agree more or said it better. Moreover, how any thinking human being could watch the following video of Bill W (the founder of AA) and conclude that this guy's assertions should be accepted on their face without question is beyond my comprehension.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meqLUGmQy08&NR=1

My best,

Nick

Pyrata,

I'm with Nick! You have managed to clearly articulate what has been swirling around in my brain about AA all these years. Well said!

I have told only two friends so far about trying TSM and both have reacted with anger and derision, scolding me for having "delusions" about a "magic pill." No matter how many times I attempt to explain, it falls on deaf ears. To them, my disagreement with 12-step dogma, and my choice to act independently, is seen as merely alcoholism skewing my thinking. I no longer discuss TSM with them or anyone, other than the people on this board.

Good idea -- save your breath and your blood pressure. And the most infuriating thing is that once you are cured and no longer addicted they'll still tell you that you are delusional and that UP IS DOWN AND DOWN IS UP AND WHITE IS BLACK AND BLACK IS WHITE. Whatever.

Dear Nick,

Thank you so much for sharing that video! I have never seen that before --- the "group think" is truly terrifying.

An interesting anecdote: I do not hold a college degree (yet) --- over the years I have been largely devoted to educating myself on various topics that interest me and have studied theology under several noted classical theologians and religious historians. One of the men I studied theology and church history with, was a high ranking Anglican priest with the Church of England, now retired and quite elderly. He personally knew the rector of the church where Bill W began his first public AA meetings. Sam Shoemaker was his name and the church was owned by the Episcopalian Diocese (Calvary Rescue Mission.)

Fr. W, the man I studied theology with, knew Sam Shoemaker quite well and was a young seminarian in those days. Fr. W also met Bill W and told me in his own words "Bill Wilson was a nut job that sold Sam a bill of goods under the guise of 'Christian' philosophy. Sam wasn't really much for theology and so did not recognize the inherent flaws in the 12 steps. He was more a basic preacher of good works and a rather simple man, with little theological training. Although the 12 steps can be traced to early monastic rules, and thus can be considered quasi-Christian in scope, they are worthless if applied to the laity at large. At best, it is a sub-Christian philosophy and at worst, the 12 steps are a true heresy promulgated by true heretics. But no one in the traditional Christian mainstream has the balls to admit it. At the time, the Episcopalian Diocese truly wanted to help drunks and never really fully considered the collateral damage the 12 steps could do to the faith of simple people. They considered any theological errors to be minor and not worth arguing about. Now, in my old age, many of us older priests really regret that we didn't try harder to put down the holy smack on Bill W's book when it came out." (I took this quote from a letter I received from Fr. W recently - we're still in touch and he's thrilled to hear about the Sinclair Method. He's quite a character himself if you couldn't tell from the quote. ;P )

Anyway, thanks Nick, and nemo for the support in this ....Nick ---I'm truly encouraged to see you are one of the cured and I take great hope and inspiration from you....Thanks!

--pyrata

The fascinating thing about the "magic pill" argument is that now, 5 or 6 days a week, I'm taking NO PILL. Whuh?

Some people take Beano to prevent gas before enjoying a meal they know will make them gaseous. It allows them to enjoy the meal without suffering, or making others suffer for their choice of cuisine.

I take a pill before drinking so that I can enjoy the drink without becoming addicted. If I'm not drinking, I don't need the pill.

Fascinating P!

For a scathing rebuke of AA, go here:

http://www.orange-papers.org/

Some people think the critique is unduly harsh. I'm not so sure.