tomsteve

welp, he really didnt have to explain himself as i was aware of what a pre meditated drunk resembled-slipping into old habits- ways of thinking and acting.
and i was getting extremely arrogant,cocky, sarcastic....prolly a few other old habits were kikin,too. it wasnt just one thing i said or did- it was a group of actions and words over time that he saw,but i couldnt.
a wee bit of denial there.
and he saw and heard it in me over a couple of months.
which i didnt know until after i caught it,then called him to say,"i didnt drink, but you were right- ive been on a pre meditated drunk." later that day,after a meeting, we had a talk and he told me what he had been seeing and hearing.

tomsteve

p.s.
that fear of relapse,imo, can be a healthy fear and an asset if used properly.

Ken33xx

My feeling is this has always been the case. When I got sober those who didn't like AA simply stopped showing up. But today in the age of the internet people are able to share their views on-line.

Here at SR posters like SS can weigh their concerns without worrying about being potentially judged or ostracized by some in a meeting.

Gottalife

As a long time AAer I completely agree with this. Going to AA was the last resort for me as it was for most AA members I know. Who would want to work with dirty smelly drunks if they didn't have to? The only reason I went was because nothing else worked and I was out of options. I think this is the best way to approach AA, as a last resort, not a first resort.

As it was the last resort I was more than willing to make the effort. I committed fully and worked the program and got the promised result.

Dee74

I really believe this


Do whatever it takes.
'Whatever it takes' will vary from person to person.

What I really like to see in threads like these is people sharing their own experiences on what's worked for them, not their opinions on what doesn't work.

D

Gottalife

I can relate to the skeptic though I was too beaten up to question anything. There is research (Crapes) and probably others that clearly shows the chances of staying sober increase exponentially if we help others. My experience supports this. The research showed that the greatest success was among those who sponsored (gave support) so the trick seems to be to learn how to be a sponsor, which involves committing to the program. There was no difference in outcome between thos sponsored (supported) and those not sponsored (taking support or not). The takers don't do that well it seems.

I didnt believe two things when I started AA. First, I didn't believe it would work for me, but it was the last resort. Second I had no belief in a god. I wanted proof about that.

Proof that the program worked was provided initially by the recovered alcholics I met who gave their testimony. It was enough to get me started. When I came to steps two and three, I was willing to believe and hand over my will and life, if I got some proof. That was enough to get me through the next two steps, then I got my proof.

The big book is AAs text book and also its prospectus. It tells me what happened when the authors and early members adopted the principles contained in the program. The promises for each step are there clear as day. The trouble for me was I couldnt see them because all the good stuff was beyond my experience, so whatever I read in that regard was just words. It didn't mean anything.

The only way to overcome the skepticism is to take the action and experience the result. Action comes first and is followed by understanding. The AA program cannot be understood in advance.
It is not a prospectus for a business venture or a travel itinerary. I have heard people use the anology of sex. It can be read about, talked about, but until you do it, you have no real idea what it is like.

I don't know how to manage the risk of relapse, for an alcoholic of my type, other than having the alchol problem removed completely, which is what AA has done.

There is much talk about reading the signs and having strategies, but this approach is unreliable. There are points at which the relapse process can be observed. It goes a bit like this. Pre relapse the people around you will see the signs. One treatment centre called it "budding", building up to drink. The relapser will only get to know about this when the drink is down their neck. The second point of observation is post relapse. The relapser will see how all the signs were there, but it is not much use because the fatal first drink has already been taken. Then comes the bafflement of how could that happen?

The problem for me pre AA was that I only discovered the flaws in my plan when a drink appeared in my hand. Up to that point I thought I had it beat.

Ken33xx

Yes, the newcomer is generally considered the most important person at the meeting. However, I don`t believe it`s wrong to suggest meetings often have pecking order usually based on sobriety date. I find this fairly common.

As far as members with hidden agendas Imo, the vast majority who attend meetings do so to help with their sobriety and/or enjoy the social aspect. They`re harmless and often helpful. Unfortunately, there are also those who get off on their status within the room and they often have a dominate personality to match.

But again… meetings vary which is why I always recommend the newcomer check out various meetings before deciding AA isn’t for them.

MindfulMan

What is a "real alcoholic?"

This.

Done4today

A person that obsesses about drinking when not drinking. And once this person begins drinking develops a craving to continue to drink.

Gottalife

Refer page 21- 22 of the book Alcoholics Anonymous for a rough idea.

Ken33xx

A “real” alcoholic is…well... an alcoholic. Not say the drinker who might be labeled an alcoholic but doesn`t necessarily obsess over a drink. They like to get smashed but don`t automatically crave another pitcher or bottle.

My uncle was told by a doctor to stop drinking. That he had damaged his liver. Fine. He stopped drinking. Just like that. He was done. Was he an alcoholic? Probably not as defined in BB of Alcoholics Anonymous.

August252015

I think this is meant for Tatsy- I fully agree that people who have actually tried AA, even if it means just a few meetings, can legitimately share their OWN experiences. It's better "data" if people actually try the program and then share. What I was trying to say is when people assert opinions or declarations about what AA is....based on hearsay or OTHER'S experiences.

Ex: I don't do SMART recovery, so I cannot comment on what I only know from listening to people around here. IMO, this COULD include saying "hmm, that sounds interesting and something I would like to understand better" but NOT "I hear it's not the way bc [x, y, z]."

Also, the BB describes "heavy drinkers" who might be able to quit for a reason like health issues, it being a phase of their life that they are done with, and such - this is not the same as a 'real alcoholic' who cannot drink safely like the former heavy drinker could decide (note that word) to do.

I know people who introduce themselves as "HI, I am Joe and I am a real alcoholic" - because it reinforces the reality to themselves.

Ken33xx

I find it a bit weird when the subject of who is a real alcoholic and who isn't comes up.

If someone tells me they're an alcoholic they are an alcoholic

A real alcoholic.

feldknocker

AA has been great for me. But I don't believe it is the only way. My grandfather was an extreme alcoholic who got sober and stayed sober the last 25 years of his life without AA. He was very religious and went to church on a daily basis. I think that was his recovery program.

One pet peeve I have in AA are the few guys who like to tell their stories about first coming in and being told to "sit down and be quiet" or "don't share for 90 days" or "take the cotton out of your ears and put it in your mouth". I hate this because I believe it flies in the face of exactly what AA is supposed to be. Thank God Bill W. didn't tell Dr. Bob to keep his mouth shut for 90 days.

If a newcomer goes off on a tangent in a meeting, that is great as far as I'm concerned. It serves a couple of big purposes. First, the person is likely hurting. Going on a disjointed diatribe may be part of their process of coming to terms with their situation. Secondly, it serves as a great reminder as to what it is like to still be in the the throws of this addiction.

Wholesome

I looked up page 21-22 in the BB and found this on page 23. What they are writing about is Addictive Voice, they just didn't call it that back then. There is a defense against IT now! It's called AVRT. I have seriously wondered if the founding members of AA would have made it different if they knew back then what we know today. I am a "real" alcoholic, just because I didn't have a religious conversion to quit doesn't make my addiction to alcohol any less real. My brain worked just like how the BB of AA described above. They understood about the AV, what they didn't understand was how to arm themselves against that voice so they used religion which was understandable for the times.... times are different today though and so is our understanding of how the brain works. Sure AA still works for some, but it is failing for many, there are a lot of people out there who don't want to have a religious conversion or spiritual awakening yet still desperately need to quit drinking.

nez

There are AA thumpers. There are anti-AA thumpers. In their zeal, thumpers don't get to fully experience all of the happiness, joy, and freedom that recovery offers. Recovery isn't a competition and recruiting drive about my way is the true way. Recovery is a broad highway, the key for the individual is to pick the right lane for them.

Whatever gets you to the party...

ScottFromWI

And this thread is closed folks. This same tired/old argument is played out here over and over and over. I am not sure how many times we need to say it, but we are not here to compare how "good" or "bad" one recovery method is to another. We are here to SUPPORT each other in whatever recovery method we choose.