davaidavai

Thanks for reading it. I often feel like I write too much and it just looks slightly nuts. I feel the same way in the rooms, that I can't say what I really think, or I can only say it in private.
I believe I read that article and I completely agree that self blame, or being led to a kind of before and after reform school story, might be very valuable for some people, but even for them, I think it's important to see the societal linkage, that all of the drama and dualism is self affirming and self perpetuating.
I've been doing AA for a long time now, and after this latest brush I feel more awakened to what addiction is, how it is an aspect of collective group dynamics which elevate some and push others down. I think you can see this in the dichotomy of street drugs versus high society drugs. Alcohol causes vastly more damage than crack, and yet it is celebrated. But seeing ourselves as simple addicts together with the capacity to make choices, might be a first step to letting some light in.
Keep following your path.

biminiblue

davaidavai, that long post was really good...too bad it got lost.

Ken33xx

The nature of the alcoholic suggests a fellowship made up of damaged individuals. It's par for the course to find all sorts of weirdness within the rooms. Hell, Bill Wilson wrote the BB and his own journey after getting sober was anything but complimentary.
At the end of the day AA is free and the only requirement is a desire to stop drinking.
I often read about the dangers of stopping cold turkey or suggestions to see a doctor or to take medication.
When I stopped drinking there was no health care, no money and no rehab. No nothing.
AA was the only game in town... and it worked for me.

davaidavai

I think the dichotomy of freedom and domination or control is imbued in the text as it is in society. There is much to love and cause for hope, and everyone has something to offer. The cure for dualism is details.

davaidavai

Funki, I like your courage. Ken, I like your easy going nature. Fini, I like your patience and calm. Nez, I like your mysticism.

Dee74

if it looks like you lost your post after an edit try hitting the edit button again.
D

Funki

Here's the article in question. Interesting article for thought.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/27/o...ous-women.html

Regarding alcohol as a high society drug, I agree that the acceptance and centrality to our culture is a major blind spot. I thought about this even when I was drinking, living in NYC. We live in a "drug culture," and that drug is alcohol. I like how NA says "alcohol is a drug, period," because it is.

Regarding its relationship to "hard" drugs like crack, the thing is one has to look at the impact per user. Alcohol is a strong drug with lots of consequences, but it only has a more outsized impact compared to crack, heroin, meth, etc, because it's legal, widely available, and more acceptable. Per person arguably more people crash and burn from using those other drugs. Speaking of high society drugs, when I lived in NYC for 8 years (until February), cocaine was everywhere, from bars to cocktail hours.

Regarding society and social issues, I think that yes there is a strong sociological/psycho-social aspect to addiction. That's born out by studies I believe. Also, that's probably why having a strong support community is key too.

Funki

-double post

TimeNeedsTime

What does constitutionally incapable actually mean? Ive searched high and low for this and to no avail?
Another beauty is Dry Drunk. A myth made up by AA to instill worthlessness, or to keep people coming back is the best I can find.No medical person or counsellor would ever use such a term so why do AAers use it?
Does AA need modernising? Absolutely.

Funki

Ha, if you notice I slipped that phrase in on purpose. I said I was "constitutionally incapable" of drinking the koolaid in any setting. I agree that both that and dry drunk are terms made up in AA that seem to denigrate those who disagree or choose a different path. In another thread there was a good discussion on "dry drunk." If this just means that someone needs to do more than stop drinking/using, and deal with whatever issues they have, then yes. But if it's used as it often is in AA to mean anyone who doesn't do the steps, or that it's impossible to be healthy mentally/spiritually without the steps, which would make one a "dry drunk," then it's problematic.

TimeNeedsTime

Oh I noticed, hence the quote. If someone is angry this means they are a dry drunk. If someone goes it alone they are dry drunks. How nice of AA to label sober folks lesser to themselves for choosing their own paths. Are they saying therefore that it is their way or the highway? Because this is what it seems to me.

TimeNeedsTime

Now. What about this constitutionally incapable malarkey?
What does it mean? We have a forum full of AAers here so someone must know right?

Right?

fini

Funki, do i feel that the use of the program for that time solved that issue?
i can’t relate to the question....it wasn’t that i felt i had an issue and would use a tool to solve it....though yeah, in a way it was like that, in some elements.
my real issue was “not doing life well”, to quote the way someone put it to me once. and yes, “using” the program, taking care of the garbage and damage i had caused in the past, and implementing a way that of living that minimizes or eliminates creating more ongoing damage...yes, it solved the issue, so to speak.Â
but this is all shorthand fir stuff that took me years, and i am not doing the process, myself, you or “the program” justice in a few short paragraphs.Â

i am a “by the book” person as far as this program, and nowhere have i seen anything there saying anything about lifelong meeting attendance.this falls in the category of separating program from what some members say. there is a lot of that.

i needed to be different in life, with life, and those steps were suggested by people like me for people like me.Â

so when i understood i needed a real “solution”, this one made perfect sense.

nez

This particular piece of malarkey comes from Merriam-Webster https://www.merriam-webster.com/dict...nally#examples

davaidavai

[QUOTE=Funki;=
Regarding its relationship to "hard" drugs like crack, the thing is one has to look at the impact per user. Alcohol is a strong drug with lots of consequences, but it only has a more outsized impact compared to crack, heroin, meth, etc, because it's legal, widely available, and more acceptable. Per person arguably more people crash and burn from using those other drugs.[/QUOTE]


I think people are more often wrecked by those other drugs because they have already slipped through the cracks and suffer the added weight of social stigma, and at that point, within the cracks, you're equally likely to be destroyed by flasks of vodka. I've seen it all over the place, drunks that look no different that hard core addicts. So, I think context means much more and if it's Scotch, Meth, Compressed Air, Glue, the rest is incidental. The reason why it's perceived as less harmful is that it's also a drug of status and so-called moderation, which is usually self medication.
If we can overcome that hurdle, then I believe the stigma of street drug users would be lessoned as would the prestige of high society drugs like alcohol, psych meds. The drama and the tribalism would be deflated a bit. Just drugs and acts of self medication. Not the stuff of status and taboo. Not interesting. A known element, not shrouded in mistique. Useful in certain circumstances, integral to the human experience. You may also get addicted to them, use them as a cry for help, etc.

Funki

I agree that there shouldn't be an added stigma to those drugs, nor should alcohol be seen as a lesser or more acceptable drug. It's a drug, period.

However, not meaning to be picky here, but for drugs like meth and heroin, the curve of addiction and abuse is much faster. I've seen people go 0-100 on meth from first try in a few months. They are more addictive in that sense. We are talking often in a month or two. Certainly with heroin, or even benzos, you can become physically dependent in a month or two. Alcohol is a slow burn which yes eventually can become the same level. And ultimately, worse withdrawals than heroin or meth. I drank for probably a decade before I had any real alcohol withdrawals. That's highly unlikely for most people with these other drugs. To be fair, for much of that time I was drinking 3 times a week so that explains part of it. Also, in my experience drugs took me down way faster and provoked much quicker consequences than alcohol. My first sobriety period was more for drugs than alcohol. I couldn't hold down a steady job when I was doing drugs. I was stealing. All kinds of crazy ****. In my second stint I only did drugs (besides weed) a dozen times in as many years, which is kinda bizarre in and of itself that this became moderate. Even weed went from everyday before my first sobriety period to 1-2 times a week in my second big party period. And there were times it was a lot less than that. Alcohol become my demon. With alcohol I personally was much more functional, although I couldn't stop, I engaged in dumb behaviors like smoking, hookups, calling in sick to work hungover often, etc. By the end I was getting drunk probably 5 nights a week, maybe 6 some weeks. So it did escalate.

But, yes, at some point they are different poisons often chosen for similar reasons.

Funki

I think the issue here is not that this term can't be defined, as I know what it means, it's that it's use in the Big Book is saying that someone is "constitutionally incapable of being honest with themselves" if they cannot accept the AA program. This assumes many things, foremost is that the AA program or philosophy is mostly correct or 100% correct. Therefore, it being the barometer of alcoholic assessment and treatment, anyone who cannot accept it must not be able to be honest with themselves or have some other issue going on, such as wanting to drink or being a dry drunk.

nez

The following 3 items are from 3 different posts on this thread page The only thing they contribute to this discussion is derision, which I will admit is an issue for me. I fail to see any good reason for disparaging any person or organization that is merely trying to help people in their pursuit of recovery. To me that is... (to borrow a word) malarkey.

Dee74

Lets all take a step back and all of us be conscious from here on in of what we're posting - tone as well as content.

Thanks
Dee
Adminstrator
SR

Funki

I can understand that, especially as far as derision or attacks.

Good intentions, as far as trying to help people, don't free organizations or models from question. In any effort that seeks to address serious maladies, from medical and psychological to anti-poverty and community development efforts, analysis of the efficacy and net impact of those efforts is critical. The latter is my background professionally. History is replete with many well intentioned efforts to help at best not being effective, and in many cases causing harm.