Originally Posted by GerandTwine
4. Your family, employer, and society may have a strong interest in you becoming securely abstinent, but how you achieve that is of no one’s concern but yours.
Originally Posted by
zerothehero 
#4 would be entirely true, except that social/human services and the courts often mandate treatment, especially in cases where the parents of small children are using. At that point the individual has little choice (or they could make choices and reap or suffer the consequences).
As I see it, mandated treatment is the purpose of point #4 being made. Mandation happens all over the place and instead of leading to independent permanent abstinence, it tends to lead AWAY from it. #4 is suggesting that a mandate for abstinence is logical (with random testing), but not mandating HOW a person acheives it broadens the means to include independent permanent abstinence, which, of course, is what the mandator should be expecting.
There are lots of reasons why mandators don’t mandate immediate permanent abstinence with random testing. I think point #4 is being made to inform people that if they don’t like what is being mandated, they should understand those reasons in order to better request what means of recovery fits for them.
GT
PS. For instance, looking at all the forums here on SR, which one has a title that would be closest to what a mandator would like their client to relate to?