What would you do if.....?
Loose Cannon
What would you do if the jury finally came back and the verdict was
guilty? There is no disease. Alcoholism is nothing more than a personal
choice.
What if you actually were abusing alcohol to smooth over you personal
problems, relieve boredom, and take a break from depression? And that
each drink, from the 1st to the 15th were each a distinct and seperate
choice?
What would you do, if you realized that your chronic abuse of alcohol led
to physical addiction? And you had no one and nothing to blame it on but
yourself.
What would you do if you realized that you were simply an undisciplined
child in an adults body, and you had to begin to take full responsibility
for all of your behavior?
I'm not even suggesting that any of this is true. I'm just asking, What
would you do?
Richard
I would Not Drink, Go to Meetings, and Ask For Help. (sounds alot like
what I do now)
Ted L.
In article <58h9hb$q...@nnrp1.farm.idt.net>, Loose Cannon
<lo...@mail.itd.net> wrote:
> What would you do if the jury finally came back and the verdict was
> guilty? There is no disease. Alcoholism is nothing more than a personal
> choice.
Change slightly the way I think about the first step. Add a few more
things to my fourth step. Throw away some literature. Revise entirely my
view of the scientific method. (-: Tha's all.
Ted L.
Alvin L. Cooper, Jr.
Loose Cannon wrote:
>
> What would you do if the jury finally came back and the verdict was
> guilty? There is no disease. Alcoholism is nothing more than a personal
> choice.
>
> problems, relieve boredom, and take a break from depression? And that
> each drink, from the 1st to the 15th were each a distinct and seperate
> choice?
>
> What would you do, if you realized that your chronic abuse of alcohol led
> to physical addiction? And you had no one and nothing to blame it on but
> yourself.
>
> What would you do if you realized that you were simply an undisciplined
> child in an adults body, and you had to begin to take full responsibility
> for all of your behavior?
>
> I'm not even suggesting that any of this is true. I'm just asking, What
> would you do?
and..........what if pigs had wings? Answer? ALL of the above.
In the fellowship, Al Cooper sends. . . . .
pmer...@aol.com
Umm, I would stop drinking, like any other sane person
Loose Cannon
>
>> What would you do if the jury finally came back and the verdict was
>> guilty? There is no disease. Alcoholism is nothing more than a personal
>> choice.
>
>things to my fourth step. Throw away some literature. Revise entirely >my view of the scientific method. (-: Tha's all.
>
>Ted L.
Ted,
Thank you for the balanced responce. Because I am rather confused.
What is your view of the scientific method? Where does the burden of
proof lie?
I have been trying for months, even years to accept the fact that I have
a disease. It seems that this acceptance of powerlessness is indeed a
vital first step if one is to benefit from the rest of the program.
I have tried to accept it on faith, by setting my feet on the path and
hoping that my mind would follow. That made me more confused. So then I
set out to convince my mind.
I hit the libraries, and the internet. It seems that the scientific
method has not helped to resolve the problem. There remains three
schools of thought.
School 1: Alcoholism should be concidered a disease. Though this can
not be proven, this theory explains much. And even though hard
statistics cannot be obtained from the most widely accepted treatment
method (ie:AA), The fact that over 1 million (some estimates being as
high as 2 million) people attend AA meetings on a regular basis, suggests
that treating alcoholism as a disease is effective.
School 2: Alcohol abuse is a learned behavior. It, like any other learned
behavior, can be unlearned. However, many elements of a persons mind and
body contribute to the developement of the habit. These elements must be
examined and treated, or the habit will return.
School 3: Alcoholism is a mystery. Lets study something that we can
actually do something about like schizophrenia.
I can find no solice in school 1. No matter how open I attempt to be,
no matter how many meetings I go to, the seed won't take. I just can't
abdicate my responsibility for becomeing a drunk.
School 2, though it seems to exist in academia, has found no place in the
clinical world.
And school 3 ..... well.
What to do?
Dave P.
Loose Cannon <lo...@mail.itd.net> wrote:
>What would you do if the jury finally came back and the verdict was
>guilty? There is no disease. Alcoholism is nothing more than a personal
>choice.
Since I would still be an alcoholic, (whether it was a "choice" or
not), I would continue my program of recovery according to the 12
steps, because that's what works for me.
>What if you actually were abusing alcohol to smooth over you personal
>problems, relieve boredom, and take a break from depression? And that
>each drink, from the 1st to the 15th were each a distinct and seperate
>choice?
Maybe I was. Who says I wasn't? And sure, each drink was a "choice".
The trouble was, after the first couple of drinks, I always chose to
have one more....
>What would you do, if you realized that your chronic abuse of alcohol led
>to physical addiction? And you had no one and nothing to blame it on but
>yourself.
It DID lead to physical addiction (meaning the shakes & other
withdrawal symptoms). And I don't blame anyone or anything for the
fact that I'm an alcoholic. I don't think I understand your point.
>What would you do if you realized that you were simply an undisciplined
>child in an adults body, and you had to begin to take full responsibility
>for all of your behavior?
I DID realize this when I took the 1st, 4th, & 5th steps, and I DID
begin to take responsibility the day I quit drinking, and I continue
taking responsibility when I take the 8th, 9th, & 12th steps.
>I'm not even suggesting that any of this is true. I'm just asking, What
>would you do?
A lot of this IS true. So what? I'm still an alcoholic. I still want
to stay sober. So I keep working the AA program, one day at a time.
It really doesn't matter to me why I'm an alcoholic.
If my pants are on fire, I need to put the fire out & keep it out,
even if I never do find out how the fire started.
Dave P. southern California
Alvin L. Cooper, Jr.
> ><lo...@mail.itd.net> wrote:
> >
> >> What would you do if the jury finally came back and the verdict was
> >> guilty? There is no disease. Alcoholism is nothing more than a personal
> >> choice.
> >
> >things to my fourth step. Throw away some literature. Revise entirely >my view of the scientific method. (-: Tha's all.
> >
> >Ted L.
>
> Ted,
>
> Thank you for the balanced responce. Because I am rather confused.
>
> What is your view of the scientific method? Where does the burden of
> proof lie?
>
> I have been trying for months, even years to accept the fact that I have
> a disease. It seems that this acceptance of powerlessness is indeed a
> vital first step if one is to benefit from the rest of the program.
>
> I have tried to accept it on faith, by setting my feet on the path and
> hoping that my mind would follow. That made me more confused. So then I
> set out to convince my mind.
>
> I hit the libraries, and the internet. It seems that the scientific
> method has not helped to resolve the problem. There remains three
> schools of thought.
>
> School 1: Alcoholism should be concidered a disease. Though this can
>
> What to do?
L.C., methinks that SCHOOL'S OUT! Whenever I see this kind of
analytical message, I'm often reminded of my version of A.A. according
to M*A*S*H. There was one particular episode where Klinger was running
a killer fever. Colonel Potter, Hawkeye, BJ and Charles just could NOT
agree on what it was caused by. Was it kidney stones, an infection, a
virus, etc. Margaret stood by trying to say "let's do something about
the FEVER", with absolutely no one listening, and all the docs
continuing the debate. My point? Don't make any difference what
"alcoholism" IS. Treat the symptom first, we'll worry about the
"disease" ("not easy" or "un easy") later. Al Cooper sends. . . . .
C Toby
Loose Cannon <lo...@mail.itd.net> wrote in article
<58h9hb$q...@nnrp1.farm.idt.net>...
> What would you do if the jury finally came back and the verdict was
> guilty? There is no disease. Alcoholism is nothing more than a personal
> choice.
>
> What if you actually were abusing alcohol to smooth over you personal
> problems, relieve boredom, and take a break from depression? And that
> each drink, from the 1st to the 15th were each a distinct and seperate
> choice?
>
> What would you do, if you realized that your chronic abuse of alcohol led
> to physical addiction? And you had no one and nothing to blame it on but
> yourself.
>
> What would you do if you realized that you were simply an undisciplined
> child in an adults body, and you had to begin to take full responsibility
> for all of your behavior?
>
> I'm not even suggesting that any of this is true. I'm just asking, What
> would you do?
>
What would I do? Why, the Tango, of course! After all...if you get 'tangled
up doing the Tango you just--Tango on!'
Carla
repsy...@aol.com
In article <58jk1d$e...@nnrp3.farm.idt.net>, Loose Cannon
<lo...@mail.itd.net> writes:
>
>I hit the libraries, and the internet. It seems that the scientific
>method has not helped to resolve the problem. There remains three
>schools of thought.
>
>School 1: Alcoholism should be concidered a disease. Though this can
>not be proven, this theory explains much. And even though hard
>statistics cannot be obtained from the most widely accepted treatment
>method (ie:AA), The fact that over 1 million (some estimates being as
>high as 2 million) people attend AA meetings on a regular basis, suggests
>that treating alcoholism as a disease is effective.
>
>School 2: Alcohol abuse is a learned behavior. It, like any other learned
>behavior, can be unlearned. However, many elements of a persons mind and
>body contribute to the developement of the habit. These elements must be
>examined and treated, or the habit will return.
>
>School 3: Alcoholism is a mystery. Lets study something that we can
>actually do something about like schizophrenia.
>
>I can find no solice in school 1. No matter how open I attempt to be,
>no matter how many meetings I go to, the seed won't take. I just can't
>abdicate my responsibility for becomeing a drunk.
>
>School 2, though it seems to exist in academia, has found no place in the
>clinical world.
>
>And school 3 ..... well.
>
>What to do?
>
>
>
Dear Loose --
You mentioned your search for an answer to the scientific problem, but
have you been drinking during that time?
Maybe, for you, the pursuit of the truth is enough to keep you sober.
Maybe you can design the research that will answer your own question. If
that activity keeps you sober, you just may not need AA's answer.
Repsychled
Ted L.
In article <32b31327...@news.pc.centuryinter.net>,
nh...@centuryinter.net (nhoop) wrote:
> Thank you, but I will
> not be needing your assistance today.
> God
Not true. God needs the assistance of everyone everyday. But not for
himself -- for us. God does not feed the poor, clothe the naked, or heal
the sick -- people do. With the tools he has given us.
(But, there is, of course, another point to your message, which is well taken.)
Ted L.
Ted L.
> Because I am rather confused.
About what?
>
> What is your view of the scientific method? Where does the burden of
> proof lie?
>
Loose (if I may call you that), I've now started to write a response to
your posting at least five times, and got bogged down each time trying to
write a thesis of some kind or another. So I'll try something simpler --
just saying, yet again, but hopefully improving with repeated tries, my
understanding of the issues you raised.
> I can find no solice in school 1. No matter how open I attempt to be,
> no matter how many meetings I go to, the seed won't take. I just can't
> abdicate my responsibility for becomeing a drunk.
>
> School 2, though it seems to exist in academia, has found no place in the
> clinical world.
>...
> And school 3 ..... well.
>
> What to do?
First of all, I don't see any incompatibilities between your "three
schools" -- they all apply to alcoholism, in different ways.
Alcoholism is an addiction. Addictions are hard to study scientifically
because they are intimately bound up in how mental processes work and
therefore almost impossible to examine and measure objectively. Good
science requires repeatable observations that can be subjected to the
social process of scientific validation. That's hard to do here -- other
than when the extremes of physical withdrawal symptoms are reached, there
is no sure-fire way of deciding whether someone is addicted to something or
not. And even though there may be "tests" that professionals believe give
fairly reliable and conclusive indicators that one is addicted to a
particular substance, they don't really explain what is going on (i.e.,
analogous to the way viruses and bacteria provide an explanation for
infectious diseases.) So, School 3 applies. (In short, when we know how
the brain works we will understand addictions -- not in anyone's lifetime!)
There is evidence (both reportorial and clinical) that a) only a small
portion of the population can become addicted to alcohol and b) that the
reason for that is of a physical, genetic origin. Thus School 1 applies.
But, it doesn't help much, except in that understanding always helps. It
is here that my somewhat flip remark about the scientific method applies --
from what I have seen the evidence is pretty good so I would be surprised
if later evidence contradicted it in any significant way -- but I don't say
it couldn't happen.
And since it only begins to explain a small part of the problem (why I am
an alcoholic and my neighbor isn't, but not what to do about it) it isn't a
great issue for me, but it is helpful. Chemical addiction is such a
strong and mysterious phenomenon that it is very hard to blame people for
things that are out of their control. Shame, Guilt, Blame, Responsible --
all are aiming at it, but none quite hit the mark since our will isn't
quite as free and under our control as we'd like. Being an addict (to
anything) is unacceptable and undesirable behavior -- but it is grossly
over-simplist and inaccurate to just use any, or all, of those four words
to apply some other kind of value judgement to that behavior.
School 2 applies because the only effective treatment (not cure) for
addiction appears to be behavior modification. (Although I'm not any
grand student of this, I'm not aware of any drug that somehow prevents a
previously addictive substance from being addictive, although it's possible
there are some -- but clearly not one yet for alcohol.) RR, AA, anabuse,
aversion therapy -- all are ways to help people change their behavior. And
definitely there *is* clinical support for School 2. For all practical
purposes it was "prescribed" that I go to AA -- and almost every medical
handbook I looked at recently listed AA as the preferred treatment for
alcoholism, once the acute symptoms were dealt with.
Sorry, it still got long.
Ted L.
phil...@pop.mindspring.com
Please rush your snail address again re. the xmas thing........
Philip the Stepless
Gary E.
On Thu, 12 Dec 1996 11:02:05 -0600, anon-...@anon.twwells.com (Ted
L.) wrote:
>
>Alcoholism is an addiction.
:::::The National Council on Alcoholism defines/describes alcoholism thusly:
"The person with alcoholism cannot consistently predict on any
drinking occasion the duration of the episode or the quantity that
will be consumed."
If one accepts this statement, then it can apply to a teenager as well
as a habitual drinker. Many teenagers with alcoholism do not
feel compelled to drink, therefore it's characterization as an
addiction suffers. What appears to resemble an addiction with
increasing and regular consumption might simply be a strong habit.
(are there weak habits?) This is not to say that alcoholism cannot
acquire an addictive characteristic, only to say it is not required to
be properly classified as an alcoholic.
Addictions are hard to study scientifically
>because they are intimately bound up in how mental processes work and
>therefore almost impossible to examine and measure objectively.
;;;;;; Can you validate that statement with some sort of emperical
observations which have survived something like a rigorous peer
review? There is an argument which goes that due to the difficulty,
if not impossibility of measuring and quantifying elements of variable
of alcohlism, that fact alone precludes alcoholism from any
"scientific" category. Of course, research goes on with the implied
understanding that the most difficult problems are the last to be
solved. If they can be. Alcoholism may be like religion. A lot of
talk about, a lot of people claim they have it, but it has no clear
definition....and likely never will...that's never...a long, long
time.
>
>T
>
>School 2 applies because the only effective treatment (not cure) for
>addiction appears to be behavior modification.
Perhaps when one is selling hammers, one sees nails everywhere....and
when one think one has a solution, then the problem, of necessity,
must be confined to agree with the solution. Hey, it happens. I
didn't start it. If the solution is the 12 steps of AA, then the
problem must be as AA defines it....no more, no less.
If the solution is in "talking to a beast" then there must be a
beast...see..... This is why the difficult part of much
understanding is agreeing on the problem. Case closed.
Gary.
Ted L.
In article <32b0736d....@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, gar...@ix.netcom.com
(Gary E.) wrote:
> Addictions are hard to study scientifically
> >because they are intimately bound up in how mental processes work and
> >therefore almost impossible to examine and measure objectively.
>
> ;;;;;; Can you validate that statement with some sort of emperical
> observations which have survived something like a rigorous peer
> review?
Gary, although I may have worded it that way, I wasn't really trying to be
terribly profound. (Well, maybe I was.) The answer to the question "is so
and so addicted to such and such" is in general not something that can be
obtained objectively or consistently. For some cases you can get a
consistent, clear, "yes", for others a consistent, clear "no", but for a
heck of a lot all you get is a mix of yes, no, and maybe depending on who
is answering the question.
But then I think that is just what you said, sort of!
Ted L.
Loose Cannon
Ted, Gary,
Again thanks for the help. However, I fear that I have not been clear
about the nature of my confusion.
Over many years, my drinking became increasingly abnormal. It got to the
point where the booze had the upper hand. Something had to happen. I
sought help. All roads led to AA.
I agreed to do 90 meetings in 90 days. I did.
During that time, I drank nothing at all. I listened carfully to all that
was said at the meeting. I tried not be too analytical, I had been
warned that it might make things even more confusing. I did my best to
accept what was being offered, and wait for understanding.
With patience, some understanding came. In order to follow the 12 steps,
I had to accept that I was/am powerless over alcohol. Once I was able to
accept that, I could surrender my will to God, and allow him to heal me.
So with this understanding, I took a leap of faith. I admitted to
myself and the other folks in the room: "I'm Loose, I have a disease
called alcoholism. I am powerless over it." There, that's said. Let's
wait and see if it takes.
It didn't take. I had said it, But I didn't really believe it.
So, in fact, after 90 days of meetings. I couldn't even get halfway
through the first step.
This wouldn't do. If I didn't get somewhere soon, I'ld be drinking like
a fool again.
I'm a great believer in the scientific method. It can't answer all of
life's questions, but if it can answer a question, or solve a problem,
the case is pretty much closed.
So I looked into the research hoping to find some difinitive answer that
would help me throught the first step. I couldn't find anything
conclusive. Nothing anywhere said that alcoholism is definitely a
disease. It remained a theory after 50 years of testing. That is why I
wonder about where the burdon of proof lies when applying the scientific
method. Doesn't an unproven theory remain untrue? And does a single
piece of evidence disproving the theory make it false?
Somebody who knows more about this needs to help me here.
So I am stuck. I am unable to make the leap of faith needed to complete
the first step, And I can't find anyone else who is offering help.
Since the 90 days ended, I've never had more than three alcoholic drinks
in a week.
I am not totally comfortable with the fact that my drinking problem has
just disappeared.
But I can't help but wonder if my problem drinking was caused by
something other than a disease, and that that cause has somehow been
eliminated, or otherwise made insignificant.
Reuben Muns
Loose Cannon <lo...@mail.itd.net> wrote:
(snip)
>I agreed to do 90 meetings in 90 days. I did.
>
>During that time, I drank nothing at all. I listened carfully to all that
>was said at the meeting. I tried not be too analytical, I had been
>warned that it might make things even more confusing. I did my best to
>accept what was being offered, and wait for understanding.
>
>I'm a great believer in the scientific method. It can't answer all of
>life's questions, but if it can answer a question, or solve a problem,
>the case is pretty much closed.
>
disagree with me. However, my experience was that one of the
MAJOR problems I had in getting sober was the fact that I have 3
college degrees. Two of them (a bachelor's and a master's) are in
engineering. I finally started recovering when I admitted that
the experience of the guys with several years sobriety might
possibly be worth more than my engineering analyses. I hate to
admit it, but the words that saved my butt are a "standard
platitude" -- "Don't analyze, utilize."
Reuben
Gary E.
On 13 Dec 1996 11:50:01 GMT, Loose Cannon <lo...@mail.itd.net> wrote:
>(snip)
>
>So I am stuck. I am unable to make the leap of faith needed to complete
>the first step, And I can't find anyone else who is offering help.
>
>Since the 90 days ended, I've never had more than three alcoholic drinks
>in a week.
>
>I am not totally comfortable with the fact that my drinking problem has
>just disappeared.
>
>But I can't help but wonder if my problem drinking was caused by
>something other than a disease, and that that cause has somehow been
>eliminated, or otherwise made insignificant.
>
>
there are two things, simple, i think. one needs to own up to the
problem; and two, one needs find a result that is satisfactory and to
which one can commit to work for.
owning up is not enough...i think. i knew i was an acoholic and tried
to get in 'one more day' ( a slight perversion of the day at time
idea). wasn't ready for two. would still not be ready for two if the
price hadn't got higher. like most i was forced to make a decision
that was very important to me in terms of #2. funny thing is that i
think i could accepted dying but not living without certain people....
that was my catalyst. other people have others. it's too easy to
generalize it and one tries to fit ones aspirations, desires, needs,
etc. into someone else's mold, it's not likely to have a long run.
so if sobriety is good for you, why? you, not me. even if you say,
because i get to keep my wife who threatened to leave, you are still
working for you...a wife leaving might please some people.
aa "stumbled" upon a solution before it understood the problem or the
cause of the problem. still is that way. it's like getting a gift
and not knowing why.... it's why "how" is not "why'. for some people
the 'how' is not enough to keep them commited. they want to know
'why'. you are the only that can supply that answer with any hope of
a long run. in the history of things aa may be nothing more than
'blood letting' was at one time...we know the problem is there
somewhere and we know that bleeding seems to work. so if you have a
reason for living a better life, then find out what it is, and if
takes bloodletting to get it, i guess that is a test of commtment that
one shouldn't ignore. doesn't mean that penicillin won't be
discovered for alcoholism someday but remember aa is for
alcoholics,not alcoholism....the hair split is important if you are a
fault finder, like me.
if anyone needs an honest self examination, it is a drunk and if ever
there was a more difficult time to do one, it is when one is
drinking...so don't let anyone tell you it's a piece of cake. and
while it may be by some definition a "disease' and all that implies,
for you, it is about character...so don't get distracted.
gary
)
Loose Cannon <lo...@mail.itd.net> wrote:
(snip)
>With patience, some understanding came. In order to follow the 12 steps,
>I had to accept that I was/am powerless over alcohol. Once I was able to
>accept that, I could surrender my will to God, and allow him to heal me.
>So with this understanding, I took a leap of faith. I admitted to
>myself and the other folks in the room: "I'm Loose, I have a disease
>called alcoholism. I am powerless over it." There, that's said. Let's
>wait and see if it takes.
>It didn't take. I had said it, But I didn't really believe it.
>So, in fact, after 90 days of meetings. I couldn't even get halfway
>through the first step.
>This wouldn't do. If I didn't get somewhere soon, I'ld be drinking like
>a fool again.
>I'm a great believer in the scientific method. It can't answer all of
>life's questions, but if it can answer a question, or solve a problem,
>the case is pretty much closed.
>So I looked into the research hoping to find some difinitive answer that
>would help me throught the first step. I couldn't find anything
>conclusive. Nothing anywhere said that alcoholism is definitely a
>disease. It remained a theory after 50 years of testing. That is why I
>wonder about where the burdon of proof lies when applying the scientific
>method. Doesn't an unproven theory remain untrue? And does a single
>piece of evidence disproving the theory make it false?
>Somebody who knows more about this needs to help me here.
>So I am stuck. I am unable to make the leap of faith needed to complete
>the first step, And I can't find anyone else who is offering help.
I am the same way after 7 weeks. It's been so easy to stop drinking,
that I have this constant battle with my mind that maybe I'm not an
alcoholic. I won't let myself get a sponsor because I might find that
I'm not an alcoholic and want to quit going to meetings. But I know
in the deepest parts of my mind that if I do quit going, I will slowly
regress into out of control drinking.
>Since the 90 days ended, I've never had more than three alcoholic drinks
>in a week.
>I am not totally comfortable with the fact that my drinking problem has
>just disappeared.
Me too!
>But I can't help but wonder if my problem drinking was caused by
>something other than a disease, and that that cause has somehow been
>eliminated, or otherwise made insignificant.
Me too!
GRL:)
Dave P.
Loose Cannon <lo...@mail.itd.net> wrote:
>Ted, Gary,
>Again thanks for the help. However, I fear that I have not been clear
>about the nature of my confusion.
(snip)
>So I looked into the research hoping to find some difinitive answer that
>would help me throught the first step. I couldn't find anything
>conclusive. Nothing anywhere said that alcoholism is definitely a
>disease. It remained a theory after 50 years of testing. That is why I
>wonder about where the burdon of proof lies when applying the scientific
>method. Doesn't an unproven theory remain untrue? And does a single
>piece of evidence disproving the theory make it false?
You seem to be saying that, if alcoholism is not a disease, you cannot
be powerless over alcohol.
Remember that the AA Big Book never calls alcoholism a disease, yet
the people who wrote the book knew they were powerless over alcohol.
I don't know if alcoholism is a disease or not. But it does not
matter. Let me say that again it DOES NOT MATTER. Whatever alcoholism
is, (disease, weakness of character, mental illness, sin, whatever), I
know I have it.
I recommend you stop pondering whether alcoholism is a disease or
something else, and just make an honest attempt to decide if you are
an alcoholic or not (meaning do you want to stop drinking or not?).
When I admitted to myself the truth about what happens when I drink,
the lying to myself before I have the first drink that "this time it
will be different", and the rationalizing to have "just one more"
regardless of the consequences, when I admitted to myself that my
attempts to control and enjoy my drinking had all failed in the long
run (I either didn't control it or didn't enjoy it, but I kept trying
when all sane reason should have told me to give up the fight), THEN I
had taken the first half of the first step. THEN I was able to stop
fighting alcohol, give up, and look for a new way to live. (And the
second half of step one is another whole story).
Read Chapter 3 "More About Alcoholism" again. Check out the story
about the problem jaywalker. I think this gives a terrific example of
the insanity of the alcoholic trying to control and enjoy their
drinking. See if this sounds like the way we think about drinking.
I encourage you to give it another try. Please keep posting & let us
know how it's going. Good luck.
Dave P. southern California
Ken R
Loose Cannon wrote:
>
> Over many years, my drinking became increasingly abnormal. It got to the
> point where the booze had the upper hand.
My question is: did the booze have the upper hand or were you for you
own perhaps not totally conscious reasons using alcohol for solving
problems that alcohol does not solve in the long term (e.g. loneliness,
anger, grief, social lubricant, substitute for love life, etc.)?
> Something had to happen. I
> sought help. All roads led to AA.
>
Unfortunately, that is the case. One decides one's behavior is
self-destructive, and they are invariably referred to a
neo-Pentacostalist religious group, even if they go to psychology or
medicine for help.
> I agreed to do 90 meetings in 90 days. I did.
>
> During that time, I drank nothing at all. I listened carfully to all that
> was said at the meeting. I tried not be too analytical, I had been
> warned that it might make things even more confusing. I did my best to
> accept what was being offered, and wait for understanding.
>
> With patience, some understanding came. In order to follow the 12 steps,
> I had to accept that I was/am powerless over alcohol. Once I was able to
> accept that, I could surrender my will to God, and allow him to heal me.
>
> So with this understanding, I took a leap of faith. I admitted to
> myself and the other folks in the room: "I'm Loose, I have a disease
> called alcoholism. I am powerless over it." There, that's said. Let's
> wait and see if it takes.
>
> It didn't take. I had said it, But I didn't really believe it.
>
> So, in fact, after 90 days of meetings. I couldn't even get halfway
> through the first step.
>
> This wouldn't do. If I didn't get somewhere soon, I'ld be drinking like
> a fool again.
>
Not necessarily true. If you had made AA your entire support system, of
course you would be more likely to drink excessively because that is the
expectation there -- either you believe unquestioningly what their
dogma, or you are doomed to "jails, institutions or death."
> I'm a great believer in the scientific method. It can't answer all of
> life's questions, but if it can answer a question, or solve a problem,
> the case is pretty much closed.
>
> So I looked into the research hoping to find some difinitive answer that
> would help me throught the first step. I couldn't find anything
> conclusive. Nothing anywhere said that alcoholism is definitely a
> disease. It remained a theory after 50 years of testing.
The notion of alcoholism as a disease is purely semantics. The medical
community adopted it as such so they could help people. Unfortunately,
as you noted, "all roads lead to AA," -- faith healing for a "medical
condition."
> That is why I
> wonder about where the burdon of proof lies when applying the scientific
> method. Doesn't an unproven theory remain untrue? And does a single
> piece of evidence disproving the theory make it false?
>
> Somebody who knows more about this needs to help me here.
>
> So I am stuck. I am unable to make the leap of faith needed to complete
> the first step, And I can't find anyone else who is offering help.
>
> Since the 90 days ended, I've never had more than three alcoholic drinks
> in a week.
>
> I am not totally comfortable with the fact that my drinking problem has
> just disappeared.
>
Quite often, more often than we are told, that is exactly what happens.
If you think of drinking as a _behavior_ rather than a disease,
"spontaneous remission" is not so surprising. What is is that those who
do "spontaneously remit," if they are in any way associated with AA, are
given a lot of negative suggestions. Even if the intent is not there,
the actions undermine anyone elses moderation or abstention without "the
program."
If you aren't totally comfortable with your drinking problem
disappearing, the important question is if that is because you are
getting so much negative input from the people around you, either
verbally or, most importantly and perhaps most difficult to challenge,
with body language.
If that is the case, then a change of associates is in order.
> But I can't help but wonder if my problem drinking was caused by
> something other than a disease, and that that cause has somehow been
> eliminated, or otherwise made insignificant.
>
Quite often, just noticing a behavior has gotten out of hand is enough
to bring about a change. There is not necessarily anything mystical or
magical about it, although change can be a painful, drawn out process.
To answer your question, of course something other than a disease is at
work. The questions to ask yourself if merely noticing that you were
drinking excessively didn't lead to the change is what has gone on in
your life that could have provoked the change? Changes in
relationships, jobs, view of the world and etc. can all have dramatic
impacts.
There is a group called Moderation Management made up in large part of
ex-AA members who are successfully moderating. They have a newsgroup.
Subscription information is at:
http://www.cris.com/~kenr1/commonsense/12steps/links.shtml
Congratulations in having coming to terms with your drinking problem.
Ken Ragge
ke...@cris.com
Ken R
Dave P. wrote:
>
> You seem to be saying that, if alcoholism is not a disease, you cannot
> be powerless over alcohol.
>
> Remember that the AA Big Book never calls alcoholism a disease, yet
> the people who wrote the book knew they were powerless over alcohol.
>
Mostly what he is saying is that the problem is basically resolved. He
no longer has a drinking problem. He's drinking very moderately. He is
also saying he is "uncomfortable" with it. After reading these replies I
can understand why. As I've seen a hundred times before, although
everyone is very sincere in trying to help, what you are doing is trying
to pull the rug out from under this man, sowing seed of doubt, trying to
sabotage his "spontaneous remission."
Ken Ragge
ke...@cris.com
http://www.cris.com/~kenr1/commonsense/12steps/index.shtml
Richard
Loose Cannon wrote:
>
> This wouldn't do. If I didn't get somewhere soon, I'ld be drinking like
> a fool again.
>
> I'm a great believer in the scientific method. It can't answer all of
> life's questions, but if it can answer a question, or solve a problem,
> the case is pretty much closed.
>
> So I looked into the research hoping to find some difinitive answer that
> would help me throught the first step. I couldn't find anything
> conclusive. Nothing anywhere said that alcoholism is definitely a
> disease. It remained a theory after 50 years of testing. That is why I
> wonder about where the burdon of proof lies when applying the scientific
> method. Doesn't an unproven theory remain untrue? And does a single
> piece of evidence disproving the theory make it false?
>
> Somebody who knows more about this needs to help me here.
>
> So I am stuck. I am unable to make the leap of faith needed to complete
> the first step, And I can't find anyone else who is offering help.
>
> Since the 90 days ended, I've never had more than three alcoholic drinks
> in a week.
>
> I am not totally comfortable with the fact that my drinking problem has
> just disappeared.
>
> But I can't help but wonder if my problem drinking was caused by
> something other than a disease, and that that cause has somehow been
> eliminated, or otherwise made insignificant.
>
Hi Loose..
Just some of my own experience here.
As many others, I came into AA way smarter than the rest (3 degrees,
exceptional IQ, high pressure-high paying job.. etc.). I looked for some
concrete answers and really never found them. I didn't want to accept
anything on faith, I didn't then nor now care if this alcoholism was a
desease or not. I just wanted the grief to stop. I did a tremendous
amount of reading on the subject, all to no avail. I also could not stop
drinking. I began to envy the less intelectually endowed than I (I
thought) types because they seemed to be getting it and stopping
drinking. I finnally had to be beaten up enough to become teachable. My
sponser used to say to me; "you have more degrees than a rectal
thermometer and you still don't know shit!". The point I'm making here
is that AA works for unknown (to me) reasons. The one thing I am sure of
is that it works. That is from personal experience and observations
(mine). Today I'm not even sure if I'm an alcoholic BUT I am sure I
can't drink in safety. I'm sure that one drink for me will lead to many.
DRINK, DRUNK, TROUBLE, DEATH. It is that simple for me today. That's not
from something I've read it's something I've lived. (obviously the death
part is the final step and I almost reached that a few times).
Drinking, I believe, will make a "fool" of even social drinkers on
occasion (sometimes often). So that is not an indicator of alcoholism.
If you can consistantly drink as you discribed then perhaps you are not
alcoholic and don't need a program of recovery. If, on the other hand,
you are alcoholic I'm confidant that you and your life will get worse as
a result and eventually you will not be able to control your drinking.
When that happens come back to the fellowship of AA and back into the
program. I will save a seat for you. One last thought; If I could drink
as you are now, I would be doing it and not going to meetings.(I would
continue to practice the steps anyway. They've made me a nice guy
again.)
Best wishes
Richard D.
Ted L.
In article <58rft9$8...@nnrp1.farm.idt.net>, Loose Cannon
<lo...@mail.itd.net> wrote:
> Nothing anywhere said that alcoholism is definitely a
> disease. It remained a theory after 50 years of testing. That is why I
> wonder about where the burdon of proof lies when applying the scientific
> method. Doesn't an unproven theory remain untrue? And does a single
> piece of evidence disproving the theory make it false?
>
> Somebody who knows more about this needs to help me here.
"Alcoholism" is a word that sort of means something -- and I say "sort of"
because it means different things to different people. The medical
community has identified a set of subjectively observable symptoms (no
fever to read, no blood cells to count, for the most part) that they say
identifies people who should be said to have "alcoholism." I don't know
whether you fit those symptoms or not. No, I don't have a diagnostic
manual in front of me. The condition identified by those symptoms is called
a disease because people having them progress through identified stages
like other things called diseases -- and, when I say "like" the informality
of that is important: everyone who has cancer, even of the same organ,
doesn't proceed through *exactly* the same set of stages. Lots of things
were in the earliest stages called diseases solely on the basis of
symptomology without any idea of the cause (at any biological level.)
Alcoholism is rougnly at that stage -- purely descriptive, with lots of
hints. For me the genetic studies are particularly telling: despite how
subjective the symptomology is, it does serve to discriminate well enough
between two classes of people (those that match and those that don't) that
the rates of incidence between the population at large, offspring of
alcholic parents, pairs of identical and non-identical twins, and
adopted-out twins are significantly different enough to indicate something
is at work other than environment.
I don't know if that helps you or not. Ken R. may be right -- you may not
be an alcholic and if so go and drink in peace.
Ted L.
Dave P.
Ken R <ke...@cris.com> wrote:
>Mostly what he is saying is that the problem is basically resolved. He
>no longer has a drinking problem. He's drinking very moderately. He is
>also saying he is "uncomfortable" with it. After reading these replies I
>can understand why. As I've seen a hundred times before, although
>everyone is very sincere in trying to help, what you are doing is trying
>to pull the rug out from under this man, sowing seed of doubt, trying to
>sabotage his "spontaneous remission."
>Ken Ragge
Nope. If you read further in my reply to him, I ask him "Do you want
to stop drinking or not?". This is a legit question; I realize that
not everyone wants or needs to stop drinking. If he can control and
enjoy his drinking, my hat's off to him. My response speaks of MY
experience, which is that I could no longer control and enjoy my
drinking, and I had to stop.
Although, if he is "uncomfortable" limiting his drinking as he says he
is, it sounds like he may not be able to control AND enjoy his
drinking. For his sake, I hope it IS resolved, one way or the other.
Dave P. southern California
Gary E.
On Fri, 13 Dec 1996 12:27:47 -0800, Ken R <ke...@cris.com> wrote:
>
>Mostly what he is saying is that the problem is basically resolved. He
>no longer has a drinking problem. He's drinking very moderately. He is
>also saying he is "uncomfortable" with it. After reading these replies I
>can understand why. As I've seen a hundred times before, although
>everyone is very sincere in trying to help, what you are doing is trying
>to pull the rug out from under this man, sowing seed of doubt, trying to
>sabotage his "spontaneous remission."
>
>
ken, i don't think this particular message is a debate about who is
right or wrong. you interpretations about what he is saying is your
interpretation, don't lose sight of that. i am of the understanding
through the Valliant update that the Sobels and their theory has been
debunked. it even appeared that they were so intent upon being
"right" that they forfeited integrity. i may quarrel with AA about
it's self apointed missionares and their ability to nail down
precisely and in all circumstances what results will occur, but i
don't question the integrity of the fellowhip called Alcoholics
Anonymous.
given the room for error in this specific case, i would now call your
integrity suspect. if one is to be wrong in advising a problem
drinker, i think error on the side of abstinence is preferable. who
is hurt by someone not drinking? on the other hand, you can't say
with certainty that 'the problem is resolved.' therefore, you risk
and you've done so publicly and let me say this: if this cat goes out
and kills himself or someone because you thought it was debate....and
your post implies and enourages a confused person to continue to
drink, guess what? you might regret what you posted
because you could get called to answer for it.. i'm not a real fan of
hardball, but i promise you, i'll play it in a situation like this.
gary
Ted L.
In article <32b1e6d3...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, gar...@ix.netcom.com
(Gary E.) wrote:
> if this cat goes out
> and kills himself or someone because you thought it was debate....and
> your post implies and enourages a confused person to continue to
> drink, guess what? you might regret what you posted
> because you could get called to answer for it
Gary -- thanks for reminding us of this. I can see that I've been letting
too much of this be simply that intellectual debate. This medium makes it
too easy to forget that lives are at stake. You'd think that every time
there's a report of a DWI fatality (and we had a doozy just last night --
thrice convicted, driving with revoked license, killed three, except, of
course, himself) on the news that at least would remind us. And it did,
but just for a fleeting moment. You're right -- this is no place for kid
gloves.
Ted L.
Michael D
Hi there LC.
I just came back in a.r.aa recently, so forgive me if my reply to your
article misses something already written.
I'd like to make a couple comments, if it's ok with you.
Loose Cannon <lo...@mail.itd.net> wrote:
>I'm a great believer in the scientific method. It can't answer all of
>life's questions, but if it can answer a question, or solve a problem,
>the case is pretty much closed.
Understood. Keep in mind though, that an integral part of the
scientific method is curiosity, and healthy skepticism. Many "proven"
theories have been disproven over and over again by new evidence. If
such were not the case, one could assume humans would eventually know
everything about everything. I don't think we are close to that in
1996, and are not likely to be close to it in our lifetimes. To be
continually ready and willing to investigate with the smallest shred
of what may only appear to be evidence is what keeps science moving
and alive.
Think, also, of those great scientists, Einstein is the only name that
comes to mind right now, who also had strong faith, and were never
hesitant to speak publicly or privately about their faith, and spent
hours trying to help people understand why faith and science are not
mutually exclusive. Faith is a special part of their lives, which
they don't wish or need to prove or disprove. After all, that's what
the word faith implies - belief without proof.
>So I looked into the research hoping to find some difinitive answer that
>would help me throught the first step. I couldn't find anything
>conclusive. Nothing anywhere said that alcoholism is definitely a
>disease. It remained a theory after 50 years of testing. That is why I
>wonder about where the burdon of proof lies when applying the scientific
>method. Doesn't an unproven theory remain untrue? And does a single
>piece of evidence disproving the theory make it false?
You may never find anything conclusive. The best you'll probably get
will be closer to a political decision by some official body, such as
the AMA, rather than absolute, final, irrefutable, and unanimous
proof. In the case of how anything affects me personally, it has
become more important for me to accept the burden of proof myself -
the effect of alcohol abuse became on me, my family and those around
me became evident. To me. Whether or not it was evident or provable
by other was of little importance.
And if you find research that is conclusive, you can be pretty sure it
will only remain that way for a very limited period of time.
>Somebody who knows more about this needs to help me here.
Perhaps you would find more appropraite help from someone who has felt
the way you do now, and today believes more than you do. Today.
There isn't a lot of difference between faith and science you know.
Yes, faith is based more on anecdotal "evidence" perhaps than is
science, because of the difference in the method of collecting the
data. Yet great humans throughout the centuries claimed as much
benefit (for themselves and for all humanity) from faith as we do
today from science. And, sad to say, the negative effects of faith
and science on humankind have also been similar.
>So I am stuck. I am unable to make the leap of faith needed to complete
>the first step, And I can't find anyone else who is offering help.
Well, I give you more credit than that, from what I have read of your
articles. You have made some kind of leap, then you backtracked.
This is not at all unusual. I have a strong faith today, yet I
backtrack daily. This does not put my faith in question within
myself, it just gives me more opportunities to look at it frequently,
to reaffirm my beliefs, to "look for more evidence", if you will.
>Since the 90 days ended, I've never had more than three alcoholic drinks
>in a week.
There is always the possibility that you are not an alcoholic.
>I am not totally comfortable with the fact that my drinking problem has
>just disappeared.
Good, I admire that very much. It saves me from saying "be careful"
to you, and I assure you that is motivated by my own drinking history
and that of close AA friends. Yet I would never dispute your decision
to be comfortable with it if that's what you choose to do. Mind you,
I said decision, and I truly mean that.
I believe that we all know within us what is good for us, and what is
not so good for us. I personally hid from this awareness for many
years. Just don't close the door either, on the possibility that your
discomfort might be but a hint of the expanse that is within you
waiting to be touched. Go ahead and touch it, it won't burn you
whatsoever.
Faith does not start with certainty, it starts with doubt. It does
not grow with certainty, it grows with doubt.
>But I can't help but wonder if my problem drinking was caused by
>something other than a disease, and that that cause has somehow been
>eliminated, or otherwise made insignificant.
As a sober AA member, I need to say that the causes of my drinking
were unimportant to me when I started this road of sobriety, they
became more important much later on, when I was ready and willing to
know them. The causes remained with me all those years, until I faced
them one by one.
Keep an open mind if you can, that after all is also an integral part
of the scientific method.
Take care buddy.
Michael D, NB, Canada
Michael D
That's a pretty general conclusion Ken, and it doesn't apply to me, I
had no desire to, and did not sow any seeds of doubt, that would be
redundant - the seeds of doubt are already there, in the very words
you quote - if he had no doubts, wouldn't he be comfortable with his
current drinking pattern? What I read in the follow-ups is an
invitation and encouragement to look further into his doubts.
I could make just as broad a generalization by saying you are sowing
the seeds of doubt on the other side of the coin.
Anyway whichever doubt he goes with will be his decision and his
responsibility, not mine or yours.
Michael D, NB, Canada
Valkyrie
Loose,
I don't mean to trivilaize your situation, but I don't think it matters
how you define any of it. The point is what you want to do. How do you
want to define it? What result do you want to achieve?
If "definitions" are what you are after, AA will imply to you that it has
a million of them. But if your perspective and expectations are not within
the context of AA, you're pretty much screwed.
If you want AA to be deep and analytical and to answer questions you're in
deep trouble because it isn't and won't acomplish any of those things. AA
is extremely superficial. If you look hard at it, it's not much different
than a parent telling a child to "eat your brussel sprouts." Period.
"Shut up and eat them. Don't ask why, just eat the ugy little fuckers. If
you want some kind of an answer, look at me. I'm grown up and big and in
control and you're little and puny. I got this way by eating my goddamn
brussel sprouts. That's all you need top know. So pick up your fork."
They aren't answers. AA is not a place that provides answers. The steps
are not answers. It's all just tools---for some, and stuff that add up to
idiocy to others.
For ANSWERS, you must look inside yourself.
So you can't make a first step? So what? The steps are simply "suggested"
as a program of recovery. They aren't "necessary" in the technical sense
of the word and you can stop drinking without doing any of them. It
happens all the time. The only requirement for AA "membership" is a desire
to stop drinking. So you have to decide, do you have THAT desire? If not,
then AA isn't for you. It won't help you. If you're not careful, it will
argualy turn on you (read a few of these posts and you'll see my point).
Within that context you will have to conform to AA , and unless you accept
that conformity it will be severely limited and limiting to you.
But---for all my alleged criticisms of it--- that won't be AA's fault.
A friend of mine went to see the movie "Goodfellas" when it came out. I
loved the film and raved about it. Linda came back and said, "I don't see
why that movie had to be so violent." I said, "Linda, my dear, it was
about the MOB. The mob tends to dabble in violence. You sort of have to
expect a bit of it thrown in here and there for effect." Point taken?
> I am not totally comfortable with the fact that my drinking problem has
> just disappeared.
It isn't a fact. It's just a current manifestation of your desire and yur
behavior and who knows what. There are no facts in AA, and don't let
anyone try to tell you otherwise. None of AA's success has any empirical
data to support it; ALL of its evidence is anecdotal, mythical and
cultural. Also, there are no medical "facts" concerning alcholism. Not any
that you count on. Every couple of years or decades, the "facts" change.
I'd like to "know for sure", too. I've been "sober" for 9.5 years and like
you, I am not totally comfortable with the "fact" that my drinking problem
has just disappeared. If I think of it as a "fact." I've often wondered
whether I am/was a "real" alcoholic or simply a "heavy recreational
drinker" as the traffic courts labeled me back in 1985. But I've chosen
not gamble with it. I don't know. Period. And I won't know. I can choose
to be miserable with that uncertainty, let it be a defining theme in my
life, or decide that it is a reasonable measure of uncertainty with which
to live. I have chosen the latter. Because it's easier. And when I go to
AA meetings, I introduce myself as "an alcoholic" because it's easier and
regardless of wht the preamble says it is expected. When in Rome...
That's all definitions are FOR, Loose, to make things easier. But they
usually accomplish the opposite and confuse the shit out of everything
because we (well , I) expect too much of them.
> But I can't help but wonder if my problem drinking was caused by
> something other than a disease, and that that cause has somehow been
> eliminated, or otherwise made insignificant.
Like I said, it doesn't matter. All that matters is that you get the
result that you WANT within the context of the definitions you have
chosen.
Good luck.
The Valk
--
Well I never would have dreamed that her heart was so wicked, yeah but I keep comin' back, cause it's so hard to kick it. 亀om Petty
Reuben Muns
Ken R <ke...@cris.com> wrote:
>Mostly what he is saying is that the problem is basically resolved. He
>no longer has a drinking problem. He's drinking very moderately. He is
>also saying he is "uncomfortable" with it.
You must have a totally different dictionary from the one I have.
How can you call the problem "basically resolved" if he's
"uncomfortable with it"???
Reuben
Alvin L. Cooper, Jr.
nhoop wrote:
>
<<<many good things snipped>>>
> without any help from me. I didn't know this until my wife gave me a little
> desk sign that read,
>
> Good morning Nat. Thank you, but I will
> not be needing your assistance today.
> God
>
> Enjoy,
>
> Nat H.
> Oxford, Arkansas
Hi Nat, May I "borrow" that little phrase from ya? It's just what I
need to be reminded of. I'll be sure to give credit for it. ODAAT, Al
jim...@ix.netcom.com
Loose Cannon <lo...@mail.itd.net> wrote:
>What would you do if the jury finally came back and the verdict was
>guilty? There is no disease. Alcoholism is nothing more than a personal
>choice.
>What if you actually were abusing alcohol to smooth over you personal
>problems, relieve boredom, and take a break from depression? And that
>each drink, from the 1st to the 15th were each a distinct and seperate
>choice?
>What would you do, if you realized that your chronic abuse of alcohol led
>to physical addiction? And you had no one and nothing to blame it on but
>yourself.
>What would you do if you realized that you were simply an undisciplined
>child in an adults body, and you had to begin to take full responsibility
>for all of your behavior?
>I'm not even suggesting that any of this is true. I'm just asking, What
>would you do?
Your Question ,Loose is the same to me as,What would you do If
you were about to fall off the edge of the earth,and it was asked of
an Astronaut.
The jury came in in 1970.
Bob N.
In Article <58rft9$8...@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> , Loose Cannon
(lo...@mail.itd.net) said:
<snip>
: Over many years, my drinking became increasingly abnormal. It got to the
: point where the booze had the upper hand. Something had to happen. I
: sought help. All roads led to AA.
<snip>
:
: So with this understanding, I took a leap of faith. I admitted to
: myself and the other folks in the room: "I'm Loose, I have a disease
: called alcoholism. I am powerless over it." There, that's said. Let's
: wait and see if it takes.
That's not what the first step says - what it does say is very different
from what you said.
:
<snip>
:
: So I looked into the research hoping to find some difinitive answer that
: would help me throught the first step. I couldn't find anything
: conclusive. Nothing anywhere said that alcoholism is definitely a
: disease. It remained a theory after 50 years of testing. That is why I
: wonder about where the burdon of proof lies when applying the scientific
: method. Doesn't an unproven theory remain untrue? And does a single
: piece of evidence disproving the theory make it false?
<snip>
: So I am stuck. I am unable to make the leap of faith needed to complete
: the first step, And I can't find anyone else who is offering help.
The first step says: "We admitted we were powerless over alcohol - that
our lives had become unmanageable." I see nothing in there that requires
belief in a disease theory - it just says that if I drink, I'm fucked.
Neither do I see any leap of faith needed - I just had to acknowledge that
in spite of my best eforts, there was little or no predicting what would
happen once I took the first drink.
Even step 2 does not necessarily require a leap of faith - just the
acknowledgement that some combination of people and ? could do what I
wasn't able to do: not drink for sustained periods of time.
I hope things work out for you, one way or the other. If your drinking
again becomes a problem, AA will be there for you - IF you make it back.
- Bob N.
Marc B.
:->Over many years, my drinking became increasingly abnormal. It got to the
:->point where the booze had the upper hand. Something had to happen. I
:->sought help. All roads led to AA.
I did the same .. drank during 26 years and tried to reduce my
drinking for the last 12 years
:->I agreed to do 90 meetings in 90 days. I did.
I would have been scared to engage myself for such a long time without
booze .. i just stoped for one day ... and did it again the next day
...I was aiming at staying sober as long as the friend who brought me
to my first meeting did ... 2 months would have been such a miracle ..
i didn't think it was possible for me !!
..... ( ...... snip . ) .....
:->During that time, I drank nothing at all.
:->
:->With patience, some understanding came. In order to follow the 12 steps,
:->I had to accept that I was/am powerless over alcohol.
I accepted it long before coming to AA .. but it took me one full
year to understand the meaning of one single word : "admit" !!
:->So with this understanding, I took a leap of faith. I admitted to
:->myself and the other folks in the room: "I'm Loose, I have a disease
:->called alcoholism. I am powerless over it." There, that's said. Let's
:->wait and see if it takes.
It was much easier for me .. i suffer from 2 different allergies ...
from the age of 12 to 18 years old i had different crisis that ended
in hospital .. I have learnt to fear eating or touching certain
products .. it has been easier for me to do the same at the age of 42
when i went to aa to find a solution to my "drinking problem"
IMHO it is not a "disease" in the way that you can cure a disease ..
there is NO cure to alcoholism !! but you certainly will be safe if
you stay away from IT
:->
:->So I am stuck. I am unable to make the leap of faith needed to complete
:->the first step, And I can't find anyone else who is offering help.
where is faith in the first step ??
... ( .; snip .. ) ..
:->I am not totally comfortable with the fact that my drinking problem has
:->just disappeared.
neither do I !
:->But I can't help but wonder if my problem drinking was caused by
:->something other than a disease, and that that cause has somehow been
:->eliminated, or otherwise made insignificant.
I dunno either .. but there is one fact .. since September 9th 1990
I haven't had any more problem with drinking alcohol .. i just don't
take the product ...
I don't have a sponsor and i don't go to often to meetings .. i
usually go to see old friends at their anniversaries .. in aa once
every 1 or 2 month
(I didn't have to go and see any doctor for my allergies either in
the last 30 years !)
Perhaps you are NOT an alcoholic ... if you can live and enjoy life
with no " more than three alcoholic drinks in a week. "
If you feel you are an alkie ... we will be there for your next try !!
more than three alcoholic drinks
in a week.
Marc "Froggy" B. (10 Sept90) ********** E-Mail : mar...@pobox.com **********
" Religion is for people who don't want to go to hell,"
" Spirituality is for those who have been there ..."
jcn...@gte.net
BEGIN EXTRACT from www.cris.com
The RR-PLAN Class Action Effort
RR-PLAN manages a registry of potential plaintiffs in future
class-action litigation. Although Rational Recovery is a tiny
organization, we can be the mouse that roared. Like AVRT, the
RR-Class Action Effort is a simple and obvious solution to a severe,
worsening problem. We will continue assisting individuals with
problems as they arise, but ask that they register as
potential litigants in the future.
The eventual class action effort will directly affect every addiction
care service provider in America, public and private, including
inpatient and outpatient hospital treatment programs, services by
licensed professionals in private practice, services by nonprofit
organizations providing professional or volunteer services, and public
institutions that offer or require participation in the recovery group
movement and its business arm, the addiction treatment
industry including jails, prisons, detention facilities, social
welfare agencies, courts, military organizations and their health
facilities, third-party payers for addiction treatment including
insurance companies and managed care organizations, and employers
whose personnel policies include referrals, direct or indirect, into
employee benefit and health care programs that provide addiction
treatment and expect participation in the recovery group movement.
When we have a critical mass of potential plaintiffs in any
jurisdiction, anywhere, or against any service provider, anywhere, we
will identify proper legal representation and file. "
END EXTRACT from www.cris.com
___________________________________________
Have any questions left about ole Ken's motivation?
:-ŞKen Ragge
:-Şke...@cris.com
Jim Norman
_______________________________________
Why do they call them APARTments when
they are all together?
Steve Pugh
jim...@ix.netcom.com wrote in article
<58vlr7$l...@sjx-ixn7.ix.netcom.com>...
> Loose Cannon <lo...@mail.itd.net> wrote:
>
> >What would you do if the jury finally came back and the verdict was
> >guilty? There is no disease. Alcoholism is nothing more than a
personal
> >choice.
>
> >What if you actually were abusing alcohol to smooth over you personal
> >problems, relieve boredom, and take a break from depression? And that
> >each drink, from the 1st to the 15th were each a distinct and seperate
> >choice?
>
> >What would you do, if you realized that your chronic abuse of alcohol
led
> >to physical addiction? And you had no one and nothing to blame it on
but
> >yourself.
>
> >What would you do if you realized that you were simply an undisciplined
> >child in an adults body, and you had to begin to take full
responsibility
> >for all of your behavior?
>
> >I'm not even suggesting that any of this is true. I'm just asking, What
> >would you do?
>
>
>
I don't see if it makes any difference if this is a disease or not. For me
the solution is the same. Alcoholism is listed as a disease with the AMA
because it meets all their criteria for a disease. There are like 8
different criteria to be considered a disease. The only one I remember
offhand is it doesn't take anything else to make you sick or kill you.
Alcoholism can kill you without getting anything else. AIDS on the
otherhand will not kill you or make you sick by itself. It lowers immunity
and some other disease kills you. AIDS therefore is not a disease, it is a
syndrome.
--
Steve P.
Jim Norman
On Fri, 13 Dec 1996 12:27:47 -0800, Ken R <ke...@cris.com> wrote:
> ... As I've seen a hundred times before, although
> everyone is very sincere in trying to help, what you are doing is trying
> to pull the rug out from under this man, sowing seed of doubt, trying to
> sabotage his "spontaneous remission."
>
"spontaneous remission"... Ken...have you ever considered being a
comedian? This is hilarious stuff!
BooneatWk
Is there still conversation going? I am inexperienced and would like to
participate, but you may find it frustrating, since I have no experience
on the computer....I could lose you or vice versus at any time.
gene assailly
dear gary keep on going to a.a things will happen for you . go to lots
of different groups it will happen if all else fails get on your knees
and ask for the willingness