# Colleague's Drink Problem



## nadia (Dec 22, 2015)

I share an office with a guy who is a contractor. When I started this job it was hinted at that this guy was a "pisshead". I was told he worked odd hours because he lived a long way a way etc and occasionally he slept overnight on the office floor. Over the least few weeks its become apparent he has been spending the night in the office because he's had a skin full, ie he's gone to the pub at lunch time and is in not fit state to go home. I came in one morning last week and he'd left his Desperados carton on his desk and he'd left for home in the early hours. Today took the piss he'd been on an afternoon drinking session down the pub and came back obviously worse for wear. He was annoying so I found something to do somewhere else. I bump in to him again about ten minutes later when he announces he is off and he'll see me in the new year. HE IS DEFINITELY NOT IN A FIT STATE TO DRIVE. I didn't say anything to him, I feel I should have, I did have words with a company director regarding this who has promised to have words with him in the new year. I feel like I have been put in a difficult position, I feel my employers have been enabling this guy by letting him sleep in the office however that is better than him driving home pissed. I am livid I should not have to be responsible for someone else's bad behaviour with the drink driving but feel guilty for not attempting to stop him.


----------



## StoneRoad (Dec 22, 2015)

Do you have his car reg / description ?
you may be able to stop a nasty accident - could you live with yourself if he has a smash ?
ring it in to plod ... anon, of course


----------



## moomoo (Dec 22, 2015)

You should have rung the police.


----------



## Poot (Dec 22, 2015)

It shouldn't be your problem but if it's too late this time, make sure you call the police next time (I'm pretty sure there will be a next time). No one will judge you.


----------



## 8115 (Dec 22, 2015)

I don't believe anyone in the history of time has ever phoned the police on a drink driver.

Just treat him like he's filth. He will soon get the message.


----------



## nadia (Dec 22, 2015)

Unfortunately you're probably right. I am feeling awful


----------



## felixthecat (Dec 22, 2015)

8115 said:


> I don't believe anyone in the history of time has ever phoned the police on a drink driver.


Yep, they certainly have done. Someone saw my daughter drive my car whilst drunk and called a 'drink drive reporting' number.
Good for them - she needed the wake up call before she killed someone and/or herself.


----------



## equationgirl (Dec 22, 2015)

What type of company do you work for nadia - a large corporation or a fairly small one? The former will have substance abuse policies with a process to follow, the latter may not. Make sure you have his car registration to hand and report him to the police the next time this happens. You can also keep a note of the times he spends in the pub.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 22, 2015)

is he actually doing any work?


----------



## souljacker (Dec 22, 2015)

Just to get the facts straight, has he definitely driven home? He could have got the train maybe? I've left my car at the office loads of times when a lunchtime one has ended up being an alldayer ("in meetings" I believe its called).

Does sound like he's got a problem though.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Dec 22, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> is he actually doing any work?


That was what I was thinking—I've worked with an alcoholic contractor who not only missed work and was pissed in the office but had also basically done nothing while he was there (and I had to clear it up). The "not doing any work" was why he was kicked out in the end. With management who don't appear to care a lot generally, this might be a point to bring up.

Having said that I've also worked with people with really obvious drink problems who did lots of good work, and I expect I've worked with lots of people with inobvious drink problems which didn't affect their work either.


----------



## kittyP (Dec 22, 2015)

Firstly I would say, don't beat yourself up about it. 
It's not your fault it's his. 
This time its passed. 

In your position, with someone like him, I wouldn't feel confident enough to front them out about it.
It's a difficult and stressful thing to have out with anyone let alone a colleague you don't like. 
You may be different though. 

Maybe make a point of taking down his registration number and if it happens again, and you know he's definitely drunk and not getting a cab or train, apparently you can call Crime Stoppers about drink driving. 
I would imagine you can also call 101 (the police non emergency number) as well but not 100% on that.


----------



## dessiato (Dec 22, 2015)

I've called the police about drink driving. I consider it to be one of the most irresponsible things a person can do and, therefore, reporting someone is the correct thing to do. I've had friends killed, and seriously injured due to drunks thinking it's OK to drive. It is not, it will not be.

If you had/have called it in, good for you. You could easily have saved someone from being killed.


----------



## Smangus (Dec 22, 2015)

I've almost been hit by a drunk driver doing about 30mph while walking. He mounted the pavement and missed me by less than 6 inches. Fuck him phone it in.


----------



## kittyP (Dec 22, 2015)

dessiato said:


> I've called the police about drink driving. I consider it to be one of the most irresponsible things a person can do and, therefore, reporting someone is the correct thing to do. I've had friends killed, and seriously injured due to drunks thinking it's OK to drive. It is not, it will not be.
> 
> If you had/have called it in, good for you. You could easily have saved someone from being killed.


I don't think anyone should be making the op feel any worse than they already seem to tbh. 
They are doing the right thing by asking questions and looking at what they have done and what to do in the future. 
That's brilliant imho. 

I totally agree that drink driving is a seriously cunty, dangerous and low thing to do but for some people, even considering fronting up to a very difficult person is so so so hard. 

I think that the op (in my opinion) is taking the right approach and hopefully will feel in a stronger position if it happens again.


----------



## StoneRoad (Dec 22, 2015)

nadia - as kittyP says, this is not your fault, don't blame yourself over his problem.
Your employer should be taking proper action to help him deal with this. Although it might be a short term solution for him, allowing the office sleepover is not helping anyone in the long term.


----------



## Cloo (Dec 24, 2015)

8115 said:


> I don't believe anyone in the history of time has ever phoned the police on a drink driver.


 I distinctly remember my mum calling the police with plates of a car full of young guys swerving around in the road and then pulling into a local pub carpark. She just said said she didn't want them to end up wrapped around a tree or worse.


----------



## bi0boy (Dec 24, 2015)

kittyP said:


> Maybe make a point of taking down his registration number and if it happens again, and you know he's definitely drunk and not getting a cab or train, apparently you can call Crime Stoppers about drink driving.
> I would imagine you can also call 101 (the police non emergency number) as well but not 100% on that.



If he is actually behind the wheel you call 999. I would never call 101 for a crime in progress as you can be on hold for half an hour or more. and then be passed on to different people. I'm not sure how the anonymous shopping numbers work but I see no advantage to using them over 999 unless reporting a pattern of behaviour rather than something that's happening right now.


----------



## mauvais (Dec 24, 2015)

Yeah, what bioboy said. Also if you can provide a pattern or schedule, i.e. times and days, in advance (via non emergency), they're more likely to respond. Ditto if you're continuously following someone driving erratically (via 999)


----------



## Sid Viscous (Dec 24, 2015)

Leave him to it - In more enlightened times whole civil service departments were staffed almost entirely by alcoholics, dysfunctionals, deficients, even a few deviants, and other such types. It doesn't really matter if the beans end up being counted wrongly.

An organisation that carries passengers is a civilised organisation.

His drink driving - Say something to him - Then your concsience is clear.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 25, 2015)

Sid Viscous said:


> Leave him to it - In more enlightened times whole civil service departments were staffed almost entirely by alcoholics, dysfunctionals, deficients, even a few deviants, and other such types. It doesn't really matter if the beans end up being counted wrongly.
> 
> An organisation that carries passengers is a civilised organisation.
> 
> His drink driving - Say something to him - Then your concsience is clear.



In "more enlightened times", fewer people as a percentage of the population owned and drove a car, so there was less likelihood of some innocent getting reduced to a smear on the pavement.


----------



## equationgirl (Dec 25, 2015)

Sid Viscous said:


> Leave him to it - In more enlightened times whole civil service departments were staffed almost entirely by alcoholics, dysfunctionals, deficients, even a few deviants, and other such types. It doesn't really matter if the beans end up being counted wrongly.
> 
> An organisation that carries passengers is a civilised organisation.
> 
> His drink driving - Say something to him - Then your concsience is clear.


And in a job where lack of care and attention could cause accidents meaning someone could get hurt, such an attitude is absolutely unacceptable. It's not the 1970s anymore.


----------



## mauvais (Dec 25, 2015)

Aye, "your conscience is clear" having had a word with the guy is going to be of limited effect if he goes on to kill someone. One way or another, society has progressed to the point where drink driving is already largely unacceptable, so if someone is doing it, a feeble personal intervention is unlikely to achieve much. On that same basis, screw em, they know what it is they're doing - and I've heard more successful stories of behavioural change from being caught & banned.


----------



## Sid Viscous (Dec 27, 2015)

Yeah, yeah - What I was getting at was - _Yes, _the drink driving's out of order so do what you can to try to discourage him from doing it. But, ultimately, he's his own man so whatever he chooses to do or not do is very much _not _on your conscience.

His drink driving and _only_ his drink driving is what's unreasonable on his part - The actuality of his being pissed in work and not _pulling his weight_, well in all honesty, what of it?

Like it matters.


----------



## Poot (Dec 27, 2015)

Sid Viscous said:


> Yeah, yeah - What I was getting at was - _Yes, _the drink driving's out of order so do what you can to try to discourage him from doing it. But, ultimately, he's his own man so whatever he chooses to do or not do is very much _not _on your conscience.
> 
> His drink driving and _only_ his drink driving is what's unreasonable on his part - The actuality of his being pissed in work and not _pulling his weight_, well in all honesty, what of it?
> 
> Like it matters.


I feel like the op is explaining that his behavior annoys her and you're saying "well, it doesn't matter" which is neither true, nor helpful.


----------



## Sid Viscous (Dec 27, 2015)

Well I don't know whether it's true or helpful, but the way I see it, you go to work, you have to "suffer colleagues behaviour"...The pisshead in the OP "annoys" the OP? Well ok, let her be annoyed AFAIC - Being annoying is not a crime. Drink driving _is_ a crime so the OP has every right to try to discourage the drunken slob from getting into his car pissed up, but beyond that it's none of her business. Helpful or not.


----------



## StoneRoad (Dec 27, 2015)

Sid Viscous said:


> <SNIP>
> 
> His drink driving and _only_ his drink driving is what's unreasonable on his part - The actuality of his being pissed in work and not _pulling his weight_, well in all honesty, what of it?
> 
> Like it matters.



Oh, but it most certainly matters - why should other staff members have to do his work. as well as their own ? Very few people these days have enough "spare" time at work to carry passengers who should be pulling their weight.

Secondly, and far more important, there are a number of jobs where having someone on duty "under the influence" of either drink or drugs is a big no-no. They are called "safety critical" jobs for a reason.
Transport, in particular ...
How would you feel if your pilot / train driver was pissed ?
I'm quite sure that you would not be happy if the team member in charge of the power station was drunk and incapable of re-acting to an emergency situation ...

And that is leaving aside the probable drunk driving by the OP's colleague - something which is seriously anti-social itself.


----------



## Sid Viscous (Dec 27, 2015)

StoneRoad said:


> Oh, but it most certainly matters - *why should other staff members have to do his work.* as well as their own ? Very few people these days have enough "spare" time at work to carry passengers who should be pulling their weight.
> 
> Secondly, and far more important, there are a number of jobs where having someone on duty "under the influence" of either drink or drugs is a big no-no. They are called "safety critical" jobs for a reason.
> Transport, in particular ...
> ...



Why shouldn't they - From each to each etc etc.

And most jobs are quite a long way from "safety critical". Most jobs don't even need doing.


----------



## equationgirl (Dec 27, 2015)

Sid Viscous said:


> Why shouldn't they - From each to each etc etc.
> 
> And most jobs are quite a long way from "safety critical". Most jobs don't even need doing.


Even in an office someone under the influence can be a hazard in certain situations,  such as tripping and falling into someone, spilling a hot drink over someone or themselves, falling down stairs, never mind anything involving site work, driving or chemicals. 

It's all very well to say most jobs don't matter but that's not your call in this situation. it's not fun being the one having to do extra work because others aren't pulling their weight.


----------



## Sid Viscous (Dec 27, 2015)

It's not much fun though having a job is it? It's all very well but maybe someone could trip over my entirely sober beard or someothersuch nonsense.

The way I see it, we help each other. When we can and where we can. So if that means carrying someone at work because they're incapacitated by drink/consumed by debt worries/lost in the throes of a bereivement etc, then fuck it, I'll carry them - In the hope they'll do the same for me should the occasion arise.

_But no, _we've got to sacrifice our humanity upon the altar of _our fucking pointless jobs._ What, really? Oh come on.


----------



## clicker (Dec 27, 2015)

Carrying somebody at work who is incapacitated through drink is not helping them.Fair enough if it is a one off event, but when it has become a regular occurrence to the extent that they actually sleep at work ,it is a problem for the person drinking and probably for people they have relationships with in their 'outside work life'. 
But how much help you can offer him with that has limitations, does he want help? do you really care? has he got the time to listen? excetra excetra...
However you can maybe stop him ploughing down an Innocent person, just call the police .


----------



## Sid Viscous (Dec 27, 2015)

clicker said:


> *Carrying somebody at work who is incapacitated through drink is not helping them.*Fair enough if it is a one off event, but when it has become a regular occurrence to the extent that they actually sleep at work ,it is a problem for the person drinking and probably for people they have relationships with in their 'outside work life'.
> But how much help you can offer him with that has limitations, does he want help? do you really care? has he got the time to listen? excetra excetra...
> However you can maybe stop him ploughing down an Innocent person, just call the police .



It is, if that's what he/she wants you to do - It might not be in their best interests but hey-ho, it is what it is.


----------



## equationgirl (Dec 27, 2015)

Sid Viscous there's a limit to how long and how much someone with a drink problem should be carried for. When it's at the stage they're crashing on the floor of the office, they shouldn't be there and the carrying should stop.


----------



## Sid Viscous (Dec 27, 2015)

That's where we differ then.


----------



## snadge (Dec 27, 2015)

Sid Viscous said:


> That's where we differ then.




Me too.


----------



## snadge (Dec 27, 2015)

equationgirl said:


> Sid Viscous there's a limit to how long and how much someone with a drink problem should be carried for. When it's at the stage they're crashing on the floor of the office, they shouldn't be there and the carrying should stop.




Shouldn't the employer carry some responsibility for the situation, contractors are shit upon from a great height in all types of work, sometimes they turn into raving pissheads or drug fiends because of the constraints on their income that allows corporations to take the piss over employment law.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 27, 2015)

clicker said:


> Carrying somebody at work who is incapacitated through drink is not helping them. .


Setting aside drunk-driving, which is a cunty thing to do, that's really not necessarily true at all. A person with a drink problem losing their job could very easily spiral into all kinds of shit.


----------



## 8den (Dec 27, 2015)

Sid Viscous said:


> That's where we differ then.



There's also the moral issue that helping someone in the midst of addiction is the right thing to do. While you can't fix their addiction you can open their eyes to the damage they are doing, and the potential for a different life.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 27, 2015)

8den said:


> There's also the moral issue that helping someone in the midst of addiction is the right thing to do. While you can't fix their addiction you can open their eyes to the damage they are doing, and the potential for a different life.


Ah, but that's a big responsibility. The OP has indicated that she's not happy about taking that kind of responsibility, which is fair enough. 

As for the complaints about him sleeping at the office, etc, how does that directly affect the OP? I'm not clear. Is she doing his work for him? If not, why does she care?


----------



## StoneRoad (Dec 27, 2015)

There was a guy working with us a couple of years ago, having been given a dispensation to arrive a bit later on a Monday (he spent the weekend at his gfs) but to work the time later. He started to
frequently arrive for work much later than expected and either hungover or still under the influence.  This was compounded by him attempting to use wood-working machines ...
He was "spoken to" and warned formally about this.
Eventually, he rolled in over an hour late on Wednesday, with a serious hangover and the shakes. The boss started to ask for an explanation - intending to ask him to make up the time - but the guy threw a fresh (hot) mug of coffee at the boss (which actually splash landed over some expensive timber on the bench - which had to be replaced) and nearly had the door off its hinges as he stormed out. We then discovered that he had seriously messed up with the work he had been doing for the past few days, requiring new material to be ordered, and the task done again.

Sid Viscous - still think drunks should be given free passes for such behaviour ?


----------



## StoneRoad (Dec 27, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> <snip>
> As for the complaints about him sleeping at the office, etc, how does that directly affect the OP?  <snip>



IIRC - the OP and this guy share an office - I certainly would not like to come into my work space to find that a drunk colleague had been sleeping off a bender on a regular basis - drunks can piss in their sleep or choke on their vomit.


----------



## snadge (Dec 27, 2015)

StoneRoad said:


> There was a guy working with us a couple of years ago, having been given a dispensation to arrive a bit later on a Monday (he spent the weekend at his gfs) but to work the time later. He started to
> frequently arrive for work much later than expected and either hungover or still under the influence.  This was compounded by him attempting to use wood-working machines ...
> He was "spoken to" and warned formally about this.
> Eventually, he rolled in over an hour late on Wednesday, with a serious hangover and the shakes. The boss started to ask for an explanation - intending to ask him to make up the time - but the guy threw a fresh (hot) mug of coffee at the boss (which actually splash landed over some expensive timber on the bench - which had to be replaced) and nearly had the door off its hinges as he stormed out. We then discovered that he had seriously messed up with the work he had been doing for the past few days, requiring new material to be ordered, and the task done again.
> ...




Addiction is an illness, usually bought on by the stresses of work.


----------



## snadge (Dec 27, 2015)

StoneRoad said:


> IIRC - the OP and this guy share an office - I certainly would not like to come into my work space to find that a drunk colleague had been sleeping off a bender on a regular basis - drunks can piss in their sleep or choke on their vomit.




So fuck, if they are dead it isn't your problem is it, dick.


----------



## StoneRoad (Dec 27, 2015)

Yeah, I know. I don't have a stress free life !
Stress can also be found in relationships and life outside of work, but stress doesn't always result in addiction to mind-altering substances ...


----------



## StoneRoad (Dec 27, 2015)

snadge said:


> So fuck, if they are dead it isn't your problem is it, dick.



fuck off - finding someone dead isn't nice, thank you.


----------



## snadge (Dec 27, 2015)

StoneRoad said:


> Yeah, I know. I don't have a stress free life !
> Stress can also be found in relationships and life outside of work, but stress doesn't always result in addiction to mind-altering substances ...



How do you cope? Beat yer missus up or degenerate the kids? Would love to know, maybe you drive fast cars above the speed limit,come on,tell me your secret?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 27, 2015)

StoneRoad said:


> IIRC - the OP and this guy share an office - I certainly would not like to come into my work space to find that a drunk colleague had been sleeping off a bender on a regular basis .


On that we differ, I guess. That in and of itself wouldn't bother me. The bits you added about piss and vomit are your additions. He may well never do either of these things.


----------



## equationgirl (Dec 27, 2015)

snadge said:


> Addiction is an illness, usually bought on by the stresses of work.


But not exclusively.  there is also the question of how much support should an alcoholic get? How many times should the employer help them into, even pay rehab? Once? Twice? Five times? How long should they be off work for on paid leave? How long should they be carried for? Even case law isn't clear on this point, other than to say it's not reasonable for someone with such an addiction to be supported indefinitely.

any employer has a duty to the entire workforce, and at some point the needs of the many will outweigh those of the individual. Especially if the individual is putting others or themselves at risk.


----------



## equationgirl (Dec 27, 2015)

snadge said:


> So fuck, if they are dead it isn't your problem is it, dick.


I don't think that's very fair.


----------



## snadge (Dec 27, 2015)

equationgirl said:


> I don't think that's very fair.






equationgirl said:


> But not exclusively.  there is also the question of how much support should an alcoholic get? How many times should the employer help them into, even pay rehab? Once? Twice? Five times? How long should they be off work for on paid leave? How long should they be carried for? Even case law isn't clear on this point, other than to say it's not reasonable for someone with such an addiction to be supported indefinitely.
> 
> any employer has a duty to the entire workforce, and at some point the needs of the many will outweigh those of the individual. Especially if the individual is putting others or themselves at risk.



contractors usually just get sacked, people with full time jobs have it fucking easy.

Friend of mine was in a car accident going to work, broke his sternum, employer told him if he didn't come in, he would be replaced, guess what, he went in and worked a physical job with a broken sternum, never been the same since, insurance refused to pay out due to him going into work, he had no choice.


----------



## existentialist (Dec 27, 2015)

snadge said:


> Addiction is an illness


That's a point of view. 


snadge said:


> usually bought on by the stresses of work.


That's bollocks.


----------



## snadge (Dec 27, 2015)

existentialist said:


> That's a point of view.
> 
> That's bollocks.




Also a point of view....yours.


----------



## 8den (Dec 28, 2015)

existentialist said:


> That's a point of view.
> 
> That's bollocks.



I don't think addiction in of itself is a disease or illness. I think people suffering from mental health issues are more likely to self medicate and end up with addiction problems. 

To the op what do you want to happen?


----------



## existentialist (Dec 28, 2015)

snadge said:


> Also a point of view....yours.


Yup.


----------



## mystic pyjamas (Dec 28, 2015)

Addiction is not an illness.
Labelling it so only promotes disempowerment of the addict.


----------



## existentialist (Dec 28, 2015)

mystic pyjamas said:


> Addiction is not an illness.
> Labelling it so only promotes disempowerment of the addict.


I agree, and I have to say that, every time I hear this addiction/illness parallel being drawn, it's about pushing an idea that nothing can be done about it. I see the same thing with the labelling of stuff like depression - "oh, it's an illness" with the implication that it has somehow simply "happened to" the person without any possibility of their having been able to influence its onset or do anything about it now, something that is only rarely true.

It's a counsel of despair.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Dec 29, 2015)

nadia said:


> I share an office with a guy who is a contractor. When I started this job it was hinted at that this guy was a "pisshead". I was told he worked odd hours because he lived a long way a way etc and occasionally he slept overnight on the office floor. Over the least few weeks its become apparent he has been spending the night in the office because he's had a skin full, ie he's gone to the pub at lunch time and is in not fit state to go home. I came in one morning last week and he'd left his Desperados carton on his desk and he'd left for home in the early hours. Today took the piss he'd been on an afternoon drinking session down the pub and came back obviously worse for wear. He was annoying so I found something to do somewhere else. I bump in to him again about ten minutes later when he announces he is off and he'll see me in the new year. HE IS DEFINITELY NOT IN A FIT STATE TO DRIVE. I didn't say anything to him, I feel I should have, I did have words with a company director regarding this who has promised to have words with him in the new year. I feel like I have been put in a difficult position, I feel my employers have been enabling this guy by letting him sleep in the office however that is better than him driving home pissed. I am livid I should not have to be responsible for someone else's bad behaviour with the drink driving but feel guilty for not attempting to stop him.



It's clear that the time has come to address the elephant in the room and it's good that you're making the first move towards some action. 

On your first day back in the office I suggest you march up to his desk and present him with a slab of twelve lagers - Stella I reckon - the idea being to wean him down slowly in a controlled environment. So after three days he only gets eleven and then after another three days he's down to ten and so forth. 

It's important that he drinks all of them or it won't work properly. But not too many!! He needs to pace himself so maybe he has to limit himself to seven during the working day so he still has five for when he watches his soaps in the evening. It might be an idea for you to move in with him during this process to check he isn't cheating or it'll all have been a waste of time. His flat is probably a complete tip so there'll be plenty to do!

If all goes to plan he'll be completely alcohol free in 36 weeks and ready for work. I guess you can move back out of his flat at this point unless you want to continue keeping an eye on him or there's been other developments lol.

Remember though, relapse is part of recovery so with that in mind you might want to keep a spare twelve deck under your desk as if he falls off the wagon the whole sodding process starts all over again.


----------



## 8den (Dec 29, 2015)

And the banned returnee is...


----------



## bimble (Dec 29, 2015)

snadge said:


> Addiction is an illness



Me I don't agree with this at all.
I did a year of the 12 steps a few years ago, where this mantra  of addiction as disease is repeated endlessly and enthusiastically.
I did take the whole thing very seriously (made 3 sugars tea for the addicts of Stockwell every Monday night for a whole year) and I remain immensely grateful for the whole thing - would recommend it to anyone in need of support to make a drastic and lasting change but this disease model of addiction is the one thing I had a real problem with from the start.

The primary functions of the disease model of addiction were:

a) To underline the doctrine which lies at the root of the fellowships* that willpower, free will, personal responsibility, is a dangerous delusion that must be replaced by submission to the will of God/ ('a higher power as you understand it/ him etc)

b) To reinforce dependence on the group and its method, for ever - as in anyone who stops attending the meetings will fall prey again to their chronic disease.

Maybe it's ok to say that addiction is an illness if you concede that for some at least it might be a bit like having a really bad case of flu, or a broken leg even, as in something that is not lifelong chronic and insurmountable.


*which are derived from an interesting evangelical Christian group called the Oxford Movement in the 1920s but that's a whole nother story


----------



## wayward bob (Dec 29, 2015)

existentialist said:


> I see the same thing with the labelling of stuff like depression - "oh, it's an illness" with the implication that it has somehow simply "happened to" the person without any possibility of their having been able to influence its onset or do anything about it now, something that is only rarely true.
> 
> It's a counsel of despair.



bollocks to that.


----------



## existentialist (Dec 29, 2015)

wayward bob said:


> bollocks to that.


Any particular bit of it, or the whole lot?


----------



## wayward bob (Dec 29, 2015)

the bit i quoted.


----------



## existentialist (Dec 29, 2015)

wayward bob said:


> the bit i quoted.


Fair enough. It's not an unusual response to that point of view.


----------



## 8den (Dec 29, 2015)

bimble said:


> Me I don't agree with this at all.
> I did a year of the 12 steps a few years ago, where this mantra  of addiction as disease is repeated endlessly and enthusiastically.
> I did take the whole thing very seriously (made 3 sugars tea for the addicts of Stockwell every Monday night for a whole year) and I remain immensely grateful for the whole thing - would recommend it to anyone in need of support to make a drastic and lasting change but this disease model of addiction is the one thing I had a real problem with from the start.
> 
> ...



I'm familiar with the 12 model and reject their idea that addiction is a disease. Both the BMA and AMA agree. Try curing your cancer or diabetes with prayer.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Dec 29, 2015)

It's an illness that results in the death of almost all that suffer from it. Those that don't are the lucky ones. 

However, it's a (usually) sober person who picks up the first drink. 
Just reading A.A.Gill's book Pour Me. 
I can't say that it occurs to me that pandering to an alcoholic helps them one bit. It doesn't. They're sick, and will take advantage. They'll only take real measures (as opposed to ones that look like measures) to stop when they've had enough, and will do anything to stop feeling like that. 

Most alcoholics never get to that stage, but until they do, your help enables them.


----------



## bimble (Dec 29, 2015)

MarkyMarrk said:


> It's an illness that results in the death of almost all that suffer from it. Those that don't are the lucky ones.
> 
> However, it's a (usually) sober person who picks up the first drink.
> Just reading A.A.Gill's book Pour Me.
> ...



Wow. It must be nice being you, with your very clear Us and Thems.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Dec 29, 2015)

bimble said:


> Wow. It must be nice being you, with your very clear Us and Thems.



I've got some experience, having been to 12 steps open meetings a number of times as a relative.
Versions of the above are what I've heard repeatedly. It's the best advice I was ever given - by al-anon - to support my relative.


----------



## bimble (Dec 29, 2015)

MarkyMarrk said:


> I've got some experience, having been to 12 steps open meetings a number of times as a relative.


Yeah, somehow i guessed that you'd attended them.
I've got some experience too (see above) and I maintain that you are talking unhelpful ignorant bollocks but, you know, each to their own, as they don't say in the 12 steps.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 29, 2015)

'alcholics' are very far from one thing, which is one reason I'd be wary of the illness model, or at least a simplistic reading of it. 

I've known very high-functioning alcoholics and very chaotic ones. I don't think they had that much in common wrt their drinking, tbh.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Dec 29, 2015)

bimble said:


> Yeah, somehow i guessed that you'd attended them.
> I've got some experience too (see above) and I maintain that you are talking unhelpful ignorant bollocks but, you know, each to their own, as they don't say in the 12 steps.



Just read your post. I don't really disagree with you. I don't know enough to disagree. But I know that we couldn't help until they help themselves. A cliche I know.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 29, 2015)

MarkyMarrk said:


> It's an illness that results in the death of almost all that suffer from it. Those that don't are the lucky ones.
> 
> However, it's a (usually) sober person who picks up the first drink.
> Just reading A.A.Gill's book Pour Me.
> ...



Addiction isn't an illness - you can't catch an addiction - it's a dependency that's generally based around attempting to numb trauma. As with any other dependency, addicts are able to overcome their addiction with the right tools and the right self-motivation. Your vision of them is as pathetic self-obsessed moral vacuums, which is all very _Daily Mail_, but doesn't really accord to lived reality for most of the alcoholics I know,including myself.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Dec 29, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> 'alcholics' are very far from one thing, which is one reason I'd be wary of the illness model, or at least a simplistic reading of it.
> 
> I've known very high-functioning alcoholics and very chaotic ones. I don't think they had that much in common wrt their drinking, tbh.



This is something else - they all drink for different reasons at different times for different ends - that I agree with. However, the illness thing helped me to understand and not personalise.

I do see the religious undertones of AA. Well they're not undertones: they are overt. I don't care very much about them.


----------



## Celyn (Dec 29, 2015)

MarkyMarrk said:


> It's an illness that results in the death of almost all that suffer from it. Those that don't are the lucky ones.
> 
> ...



I think everyone dies, actually.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Dec 29, 2015)

Celyn said:


> I think everyone dies, actually.


I didn't say differently, but thanks.


----------



## bimble (Dec 29, 2015)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Just read your post. I don't really disagree with you. I don't know enough to disagree. But I know that we couldn't help until they help themselves. A cliche I know.



But exactly that's the thing: They had to help themselves, or want genuinely want to make a change. That's the thing that the disease model denies: Agency.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 29, 2015)

MarkyMarrk said:


> I've got some experience, having been to 12 steps open meetings a number of times as a relative.
> Versions of the above are what I've heard repeatedly. It's the best advice I was ever given - by al-anon - to support my relative.



So your knowledge derives from hearing evidence from a self-selecting group for whom "the program" works, not from a rounded knowledge of alcoholism and alcoholics.


----------



## killer b (Dec 29, 2015)

I also found the illness model pushed by the AA pretty unrealistic - I'm glad many people are helped by AA, but I'm sure many more people are put off getting help through that route by the dogmatic adherence to a 1930s philosophy with little grounding in reality. The best thing about AA is the support and advice from the other members, and that help is in spite of the philosophy, not because of it.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Dec 29, 2015)

bimble said:


> But exactly that's the thing: They had to help themselves, or want genuinely want to make a change. That's the thing that the disease model denies: Agency.


I'm not convinced it does, but I don't have experience of enough people to see whether that's true or not.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Dec 29, 2015)

8den said:


> And the banned returnee is...


banned.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Dec 29, 2015)

killer b said:


> I also found the illness model pushed by the AA pretty unrealistic - I'm glad many people are helped by AA, but I'm sure many more people are put off getting help through that route by the dogmatic adherence to a 1930s philosophy with little grounding in reality. The best thing about AA is the support and advice from the other members, and that help is in spite of the philosophy, not because of it.



I agree with this, except "the illness model" allows them to be compassionate with themselves when they do start to recover. They certainly take personal responsibility - or are expected to - with lists and so on.

The references to God are weird. I've heard lots of regular AA goers say they don't believe in God, or don't care what it is.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 29, 2015)

killer b said:


> I also found the illness model pushed by the AA pretty unrealistic - I'm glad many people are helped by AA, but I'm sure many more people are put off getting help through that route by the dogmatic adherence to a 1930s philosophy with little grounding in reality. The best thing about AA is the support and advice from the other members, and that help is in spite of the philosophy, not because of it.


My mate was sent to AA by his doctor. He attended one meeting and went back to the doctor to say that he had nothing in common with anyone in the group and wasn't going back. Doctor said it was probably for the best - he wasn't good in groups.


----------



## bimble (Dec 29, 2015)

MarkyMarrk said:


> I agree with this, except "the illness model" allows them to be compassionate with themselves when they do start to recover. They certainly take personal responsibility - or are expected to - with lists and so on.
> 
> The references to God are weird. I've heard lots of regular AA goers say they don't believe in God, or don't care what it is.



I get the feeling that you're coming from a place of supporting someone you care about and wanting them to get the most out of the 12 steps so I'm going to try to refrain from fighting with you about the whole disease model thing. I hope your friend / loved one gets strong and happy enough to at some point stop going to meetings, is all.


----------



## killer b (Dec 29, 2015)

The standard AA spiel - one which is very popular among AA members in the meetings I went to - is that there is something special or different about the alcoholic, that they have a sort of allergy to alcohol that makes it act on them differently than it does on most of the population. Which is both transparently bullshit, and an abdication of responsibility - the very opposite of taking personal responsibility for their addiction.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Dec 29, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> My mate was sent to AA by his doctor. He attended one meeting and went back to the doctor to say that he had nothing in common with anyone in the group and wasn't going back. Doctor said it was probably for the best - he wasn't good in groups.



I've seen that too. And I've seen people who say they walked out of their first meeting and didn't return for years. I don't think AA is for every alcoholic. I just know that there are people I know who have found no other way. It's like that Churchill quote about democracy - it's the worst form of government apart from all the others. AA seems to me to be the worst way to stop drinking apart from all the others. 

And I'll repeat: I know it's not for everyone. I'm not here to represent AA. I just remember that advice about not helping people who weren't really ready!


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Dec 29, 2015)

killer b said:


> The standard AA spiel - one which is very popular among AA members in the meetings I went to - is that there is something special or different about the alcoholic, that they have a sort of allergy to alcohol that makes it act on them differently than it does on most of the population. Which is both transparently bullshit, and an abdication of responsibility - the very opposite of taking personal responsibility for their addiction.



That's a different reading to anything I've ever taken from what I've heard, though they do talk about 'normal' people. I have heard it said that alcoholics just lack the power to put down a drink, but not even everyone appears to agree with that.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Dec 29, 2015)

bimble said:


> I get the feeling that you're coming from a place of supporting someone you care about and wanting them to get the most out of the 12 steps so I'm going to try to refrain from fighting with you about the whole disease model thing. I hope your friend / loved one gets strong and happy enough to at some point stop going to meetings, is all.



Thanks: sort of. I am interested.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 29, 2015)

bimble said:


> But exactly that's the thing: They had to help themselves, or want genuinely want to make a change. That's the thing that the disease model denies: Agency.


The disease model is also rather on/off, isn't it?

I knew someone who was drinking and taking various drugs, as were others around her. She went back home, checked into rehab and described herself as in recovery, but she hadn't been doing much different from others who did none of this.

To clarify, I'm not saying she was wrong - she may well have been right for her - but the definitions of these things are as much socially defined as medically.


----------



## killer b (Dec 29, 2015)

MarkyMarrk said:


> That's a different reading to anything I've ever taken from what I've heard, though they do talk about 'normal' people. I have heard it said that alcoholics just lack the power to put down a drink, but not even everyone appears to agree with that.


just a minute, I've got the Big Book upstairs, I'll see if I can find the quote.


----------



## existentialist (Dec 29, 2015)

MarkyMarrk said:


> That's a different reading to anything I've ever taken from what I've heard, though they do talk about 'normal' people. I have heard it said that alcoholics just lack the power to put down a drink, but not even everyone appears to agree with that.


From my own therapeutic standpoint, I think that the problem with both the "illness" approach, and the idea of treating alcoholism as being solely about the "power to put down a drink", is that both of them neglect the context. For a lot of people who fall into addictions, the substance use starts out as a coping strategy - something to enable them to deal with or manage what's going on in their lives. It's certainly true that once the addiction has reached a point where it's evidently an issue, the underlying problems are well buried under the crap and detritus of an addictive lifestyle, but they're still there, and (potentially) still driving the problem.

I don't work specifically with addictions, though I often see clients who are (or have been) addicted to something. I've seen several cases where, even though we didn't go anywhere near directly addressing the drinking, we did start to uncover deeper-seated stuff going on that enabled the client to stop drinking at such harmful levels, simply because they had begun to understand what was underpinning it.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 29, 2015)

existentialist said:


> I don't work specifically with addictions, though I often see clients who are (or have been) addicted to something. I've seen several cases where, even though we didn't go anywhere near directly addressing the drinking, we did start to uncover deeper-seated stuff going on that enabled the client to stop drinking at such harmful levels, simply because they had begun to understand what was underpinning it.


This is interesting. In your experience how realistic is it for a problem drinker to change drinking habits without adopting total sobriety?

That's another thing that's always struck me about AA - the moralistic 'how many days "clean"' you've been.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Dec 29, 2015)

killer b said:


> just a minute, I've got the Big Book upstairs, I'll see if I can find the quote.



Well the Bill W book as the bible is itself weird. But people take the bits that help, don't they?


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Dec 29, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> This is interesting. In your experience how realistic is it for a problem drinker to change drinking habits without adopting total sobriety?
> 
> That's another thing that's always struck me about AA - the moralistic 'how many days "clean"' you've been.



I'm not sure it is moralistic.


----------



## killer b (Dec 29, 2015)

here we are, from 'the doctors opinion', first chapter:



> We believe, and so suggested a few years ago, that the action of alcohol on these chronic alcoholics is a manifestation of an allergy; that the phenomenon of craving is limited to this class and never occurs in the average temperate drinker. These allergic types can never safely use alcohol in any form at all; and once having formed the habit and found they cannot break it, once having lost their self-confidence, their reliance upon things human, their problems pile up on them and become astonishingly difficult to solve.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 29, 2015)

MarkyMarrk said:


> I'm not sure it is moralistic.


I've never been, so I don't know, but do they offer alternative models?


----------



## two sheds (Dec 29, 2015)

bimble said:


> But exactly that's the thing: They had to help themselves, or want genuinely want to make a change. That's the thing that the disease model denies: Agency.



Interesting, and yes otherwise you're conversely suggesting that people could get better from illnesses if they'd only buck up. Which lends itself well to the religious aspect.


----------



## existentialist (Dec 29, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> This is interesting. In your experience how realistic is it for a problem drinker to change drinking habits without adopting total sobriety?


I honestly don't have enough experience in this area to be able to say anything with any authority.

But I do recognise that there are many different kinds of substance misuser, and while some seem to be able to "just decide" they're going to stop (one fairly recent client I recall had been using crack cocaine, and went clean without any medical or psychological intervention, which surprised me somewhat), others can take every bit of help going and still flounder.



littlebabyjesus said:


> That's another thing that's always struck me about AA - the moralistic 'how many days "clean"' you've been.


The more I hear of AA, particularly professionally, the more uncomfortable I find myself feeling about it. It clearly does some people a very valuable service, but I do wonder about the wisdom of that particular approach with people whose substance use may be tangled up with some complex psychological issues.


----------



## killer b (Dec 29, 2015)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Well the Bill W book as the bible is itself weird. But people take the bits that help, don't they?


Yes, of course - but if the help is built on a fantasy, the help is pretty limited IMO. And if the help being offered to other alcoholics is transparently nonsense, then is it any surprise people generally have to be totally desperate to seek help through them?


----------



## killer b (Dec 29, 2015)

someone on the giving up booze thread recommended SMART as an alternative to AA - I understand they base their therapy on CBT rather than pseudo-science and woo. UK SMART Recovery


----------



## bimble (Dec 29, 2015)

killer b said:


> Yes, of course - but if the help is built on a fantasy, the help is pretty limited IMO. And if the help being offered to other alcoholics is transparently nonsense, then is it any surprise *people generally have to be totally desperate to seek help through them*?



My personal experience of the steppers (1 year solid total abstinence & consistent attendance despite plenty of intellectual objections and all that) is that yes, total despair is the only criterion for success.
Which is no bad thing.
I mean, despite all my criticisms here I want to be clear that they helped me enormously - the thing is that I'm ok now, even though I haven't been to a meeting for ages, and all the "we are praying for you" messages stopped a long time ago.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Dec 29, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I've never been, so I don't know, but do they offer alternative models?



The only requirement is a desire to stop drinking.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Dec 29, 2015)

bimble said:


> My personal experience of the steppers (1 year solid total abstinence & consistent attendance despite plenty of intellectual objections and all that) is that yes, total despair is the only criterion for successful entry.
> Which is no bad thing.
> I mean, despite all my criticisms here I want to be clear that they helped me enormously - the thing is that I'm ok now, even though I haven't been to a meeting for ages, and all the "we are praying for you" messages stopped a long time ago.



Yes, some people I've witnessed have pushed a 'you will not be able to stay sober without praying' alongside a 'you will definitely not be able to stay sober without going to meetings'.

But that's not a thing I've seen promoted as a group.

I don't really know what I'm saying here, to be honest. I just started out with an idea that I stand by that 'helping' someone who is an alcoholic but who isn't ready to go through whatever it takes to stop is usually (I think I wrote always) counterproductive.


----------



## 8den (Dec 29, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> So your knowledge derives from hearing evidence from a self-selecting group for whom "the program" works, not from a rounded knowledge of alcoholism and alcoholics.



It's always worth pointing out that the AAs own figures put their success rate at 8% slightly higher than the 7% who achieve sobriety by themselves.


----------



## killer b (Dec 29, 2015)

bimble said:


> My personal experience of the steppers (1 year solid total abstinence & consistent attendance despite plenty of intellectual objections and all that) is that yes, total despair is the only criterion for success.
> Which is no bad thing.


I can't help thinking it may be possible to help those who seek help at an earlier stage, if a more reality based solution were the dominant method of stopping drinking.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 29, 2015)

MarkyMarrk said:


> The only requirement is a desire to stop drinking.


Yes, but from what killerb posted, they're presumably taken to be self-diagnosing a very specific illness with a very specific pathology. They're 'one thing' - and anyone who drinks and finds it hard/impossible to moderate/give up is by definition that one thing. 

I have to agree that this is rather dangerous nonsense, whatever else is good about them.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Dec 29, 2015)

8den said:


> It's always worth pointing out that the AAs own figures put their success rate at 8% slightly higher than the 7% who achieve sobriety by themselves.


Do they? Is there a source for that?
Edited to additionally say that I'm not doubting it, I'd just be interested.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Dec 29, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yes, but from what killerb posted, they're presumably taken to be self-diagnosing a very specific illness with a very specific pathology. They're 'one thing' - and anyone who drinks and finds it hard/impossible to moderate/give up is by definition that one thing.
> 
> I have to agree that this is rather dangerous nonsense, whatever else is good about them.


I don't think this is true in my experience. They are openly very different and very clear about that. They do encourage people at meetings to look at the similarities and not the differences but repeatedly say that they are very different.


----------



## bimble (Dec 29, 2015)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Yes, some people I've witnessed have pushed a 'you will not be able to stay sober without praying' alongside a 'you will definitely not be able to stay sober without going to meetings'.
> 
> But that's not a thing I've seen promoted as a group.
> 
> I don't really know what I'm saying here, to be honest.



For you as someone who is trying to help a person you love it's not that complicated I think: You've already understood the key point somewhere upthread which is that if they do not genuinely themselves feel a very strong visceral (might I say desperate) desire to make a change then you can't force them, and neither can the steppers.
If the person is sincere and in acute need (as I was when I crept into the back of my first  meeting that day) then the steppers are an amazing resource, even for cynical loners with massive reservations like for instance.. me.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Dec 29, 2015)

bimble said:


> For you as someone who is trying to help a person you love it's not that complicated I think: You've already understood the key point somewhere upthread which is that if they do not genuinely themselves feel a very strong visceral (might I say desperate) desire to make a change then you can't force them, and neither can the steppers.
> If the person is sincere and in acute need (as I was when I crept into the back of my first  meeting that day) then the steppers are an amazing resource, even for cynical loners with massive reservations like for instance.. me.



But I thought you'd objected to me saying this? I am so confuddlused.


----------



## bimble (Dec 29, 2015)

killer b said:


> I can't help thinking it may be possible to help those who seek help at an earlier stage, if a more reality based solution were the dominant method of stopping drinking.


Agreed. Some of this is to do with much wider societal structural issues, like funding for the NHS etc. We're not QUITE as bad as America just yet, where drunk drivers are (I think) forced to attend AA meetings, but we have very little to offer people as an alternative.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Dec 29, 2015)

bimble said:


> Agreed. Some of this is to do with much wider societal structural issues, like funding for the NHS etc. We're not QUITE as bad as America just yet, where drunk drivers are (I think) forced to attend AA meetings, but we have very little to offer people as an alternative.


I don't see how AA meetings can work when people are forced to go.


----------



## bimble (Dec 29, 2015)

MarkyMarrk said:


> But I thought you'd objected to me saying this? I am so confuddlused.


I didn't mean to confuddle you! Which bit? I just meant to sort of commend you for noticing that the person's own desire for change is the key bit.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Dec 29, 2015)

bimble said:


> I didn't mean to confuddle you! Which bit? I just meant to sort of commend you for noticing that the person's own desire for change is the key bit.


You were clearly upset with my post where you referred to Us and Thems.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 29, 2015)

bimble said:


> Agreed. Some of this is to do with much wider societal structural issues, like funding for the NHS etc. We're not QUITE as bad as America just yet, where drunk drivers are (I think) forced to attend AA meetings, but we have very little to offer people as an alternative.


In the US, an 'underage' drinker, ie an older teenager who likes getting pissed, is very often classed as an alcoholic and sent for treatment. That's the social aspect of diagnosis.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 29, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> This is interesting. In your experience how realistic is it for a problem drinker to change drinking habits without adopting total sobriety?



I went from being a drinking alcoholic, to an abstaining alcoholic, and now I can have a drink without having dozens of drinks. I drink in a year, what I used to drink in a week.  



> That's another thing that's always struck me about AA - the moralistic 'how many days "clean"' you've been.



It's part of the "disease" _schtick_. it sets successful abstainers up as being able to feel good about themselves. In that way it *can be* a good mechanism for giving people self-confidence in their sobriety. Unfortunately it can also make falling off the wagon even more of a soul-destroyer.


----------



## bimble (Dec 29, 2015)

MarkyMarrk said:


> You were clearly upset with my post where you referred to Us and Thems.


True. The Us and Them is big in 12 step groupthink and it's what I had a big problem with. It's a necessary consequence of the 'addiction is a disease' idea. 
It's not something that makes sense to me but it seemed to help other people (like the kind of people who have been attending meetings for 20 years and have risen up the stepper hierarchy etc) but, you know, just to reiterate: 
They helped me immensely, they were great for 12 months, I learnt a lot about all sorts of things but for me personally I'm just happy I don't have to choose between having a massive drug problem and making tea every Monday in Stockwell for the rest of my days .


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 29, 2015)

MarkyMarrk said:


> I'm not sure it is moralistic.



It's implicitly judgemental. It can't help but be. It measures "success" and therefore emphasises failure.


----------



## killer b (Dec 29, 2015)

8den said:


> It's always worth pointing out that the AAs own figures put their success rate at 8% slightly higher than the 7% who achieve sobriety by themselves.


Most people - much, much higher than either of those figures - recover from addiction with no formal intervention or help at all. This article is very interesting reading on the topic.

Most People With Addiction Simply Grow Out of It: Why Is This Widely Denied? - Substance.com


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 29, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> I went from being a drinking alcoholic, to an abstaining alcoholic, and now I can have a drink without having dozens of drinks. I drink in a year, what I used to drink in a week. .


My martial arts teacher is like that. He stopped drinking about 15 years ago (had to - would have died otherwise) and it was one of the hardest things he'd ever done. Now, at the age of 80, he's started taking the odd beer, and really enjoying it. He's not relapsing into any kind of alcoholism at all.


----------



## bimble (Dec 29, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> My martial arts teacher is like that. He stopped drinking about 15 years ago (had to - would have died otherwise) and it was one of the hardest things he'd ever done. Now, at the age of 80, he's started taking the odd beer, and really enjoying it. He's not relapsing into any kind of alcoholism at all.



When I was part of the group this would happen a lot: 
Someone would mention the name of a person who was missing from the meetings for say a week or two, and everyone in hushed voices and shaking heads would talk about them in a well-meaning but closed ranks sort of way as if they were either dead or surely lying in the gutter somewhere, a tragic failure. I have no doubt that I've been discussed & dismissed in this same tragic tone of voice.


----------



## 8den (Dec 29, 2015)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Do they? Is there a source for that?
> Edited to additionally say that I'm not doubting it, I'd just be interested.


 It's from the orange papers taken from a leaked AA report from the 1980s. Kinda debunks that "rarely have we seen this program fail" bullshit.


----------



## killer b (Dec 29, 2015)

This is the best thing I've ever read about the AA (and one of the best things I've ever read about drinking in general). You should all read it. 

http://www.portlandhearingvoices.net/files/HarpersDrunksClub2011-01-0083250.pdf


----------



## bimble (Dec 29, 2015)

8den said:


> It's from the orange papers taken from a leaked AA report from the 1980s. Kinda debunks that "rarely have we seen this program fail" bullshit.


Orange Papers is kind of extreme anti-12 steps (I spent quite a lot of time on there between meetings)   but it is a fact that there are no reliable facts about success rates of 12 steps as opposed to anything else.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 29, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> My martial arts teacher is like that. He stopped drinking about 15 years ago (had to - would have died otherwise) and it was one of the hardest things he'd ever done. Now, at the age of 80, he's started taking the odd beer, and really enjoying it. He's not relapsing into any kind of alcoholism at all.



I've said elsewhere on threads on Urban, that once I had confronted the psychological issues driving my drinking, I no longer felt the need for daily alcoholic oblivion. One of the problems that I have with A.A. is that addressing causes is secondary to "the program", which has always seemed arse-about-face and culty to me.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 29, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> I've said elsewhere on threads on Urban, that once I had confronted the psychological issues driving my drinking, I no longer felt the need for daily alcoholic oblivion. One of the problems that I have with A.A. is that addressing causes is secondary to "the program", which has always seemed arse-about-face and culty to me.


But what about your 'allergy'?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 29, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> I've said elsewhere on threads on Urban, that once I had confronted the psychological issues driving my drinking, I no longer felt the need for daily alcoholic oblivion. One of the problems that I have with A.A. is that addressing causes is secondary to "the program", which has always seemed arse-about-face and culty to me.


Someone mentioned an alternative that uses cbt. I have the same criticism of that approach, tbh, although ' whatever works' applies.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 29, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> But what about your 'allergy'?



I must have desensitised myself to it.


----------



## bimble (Dec 29, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> It's implicitly judgemental. It can't help but be. It measures "success" and therefore emphasises failure.



My experience of a year of these meetings (all over London) is that they were in a way the least judgemental public spaces that could possibly exist.
That's what I loved about it, even writing it here I feel a sort of nostalgia - on plastic chairs in crappy rooms at the back of churches and community centres all over this city people get together every night and talk about their fears and pain and it is a really powerful thing.
Even better than getting rid of a drug problem was the process of night after night being proved wrong in my assumptions about people (people in spangled backwards baseball caps, people in very posh red trousers.. all of them. Seriously, I'd recommend it to anyone for that alone.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 29, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Someone mentioned an alternative that uses cbt. I have the same criticism of that approach, tbh, although ' whatever works' applies.



CBT is about giving someone tools for self-analysis, rather than prescribing solutions. In my opinion that makes it a bit more valid than the whole "higher power" woo.


----------



## 8den (Dec 29, 2015)

bimble said:


> Orange Papers is kind of extreme anti-12 steps (I spent quite a lot of time on there between meetings)   but it is a fact that there are no reliable facts about success rates of 12 steps as opposed to anything else.



It is telling that there are no reliable figures on AAs success rate and the orange papers stats come from leaked AA reports. 

As to extreme Anti AA, AA is a religious organisation (bollocks to spirituality isn't religion) that is supported by the courts, the media (invariably 90% of all fictional addiction storylines in tv & films includes the characters using AA) and the NHS.


----------



## killer b (Dec 29, 2015)

Yeah, I feel a bit disloyal slagging off the AA here. I got a lot out of the meetings - but it's the people rather than the organisation, as you correctly identify.


----------



## bimble (Dec 29, 2015)

8den said:


> It is telling that there are no reliable figures on AAs success rate and the orange papers stats come from leaked AA reports.
> 
> As to extreme Anti AA, AA is a religious organisation (bollocks to spirituality isn't religion) that is supported by the courts, the media (invariably 90% of all fictional addiction storylines in tv & films includes the characters using AA) and the NHS.



Yes. All true. Like I said, have spent time on that website - and the figures are the best we've got, not disputing them at all. During my 1 year attendance I'd say about 80% of 'newcomers' disappeared whilst I was there.


----------



## 8den (Dec 29, 2015)

bimble said:


> My experience of a year of these meetings (all over London) is that they were in a way the least judgemental public spaces that could possibly exist.
> That's what I loved about it, even writing it here I feel a sort of nostalgia - on plastic chairs in crappy rooms at the back of churches and community centres all over this city people get together every night and talk about their fears and pain and it is a really powerful thing.
> Even better than getting rid of a drug problem was the process of night after night being proved wrong in my assumptions about people (people in spangled backwards baseball caps, people in very posh red trousers.. all of them. Seriously, I'd recommend it to anyone for that alone.


Do you didn't see 13th stepping?

Preying on the weakness of others? People telling other members to stop taking anti psychotic medication because on it they "weren't their true self"


----------



## killer b (Dec 29, 2015)

8den said:


> It is telling that there are no reliable figures on AAs success rate and the orange papers stats come from leaked AA reports.


How would it be possible to gather reliable figures?


----------



## bimble (Dec 29, 2015)

8den said:


> Do you didn't see 13th stepping?
> 
> Preying on the weakness of others? People telling other members to stop taking anti psychotic medication because on it they "weren't their true self"



Yes, I saw that stuff (both of those things).


----------



## bimble (Dec 29, 2015)

killer b said:


> How would it be possible to gather reliable figures?


I think it is not possible. But that due largely to the open door policy of all meetings - you don't have to sign anything, you don't even ever have to give your surname etc.

The fact remains that the 12 steps started in the 1930s in America and without accepting any state funding at all have mushroomed to be what they are today. So, something works.


----------



## 8den (Dec 29, 2015)

bimble said:


> Yes. All true. Like I said, have spent time on that website - and the figures are the best we've got, not disputing them at all. During my 1 year attendance I'd say about 80% of 'newcomers' disappeared whilst I was there.



Which is my major objection to AA. What's the first thing that you are told when you come in "rarely have we seen this program fail" is an abject lie, and it goes on to tell you if AA doesn't work it's your fault and you are going to fail what a great message to send that 80% back out the door with....


----------



## bimble (Dec 29, 2015)

8den said:


> Which is my major objection to AA. What's the first thing that you are told when you come in "rarely have we seen this program fail" is an abject lie, and it goes on to tell you if AA doesn't work it's your fault and you are going to fail what a great message to send that 80% back out the door with....



Agreed. If it works for you that's the power of Us, if it doesn't that's entirely Your fault.


----------



## 8den (Dec 29, 2015)

killer b said:


> How would it be possible to gather reliable figures?



From the AA. They have then we've seen that from the leaked orange papers site. Considering we let the AA into NHS treatment centres and GPs recommend AA to people suffering addiction we really should get reliable figures. 

Just for the record I've no objection to AA I'd just prefer if it admitted it wasn't the only game in town and furthermore I wish both treatment centres and gPs were aware that there are a lot of alternatives.


----------



## killer b (Dec 29, 2015)

How would the AA gather such figures?


----------



## bimble (Dec 29, 2015)

I'm just going to put this here in case anyone is interested:
This is is the online version of a little book called "For Sinners Only", published in 1932, which is the root text of where AA and all the 12 step programmes evolved out of ..
For Sinners Only
The text is part of the Oxford Movement revolutionary Christian group targetting the louchest of undergrads and racing car drivers.. which a decade or so later became the  "moral rearmament" corps - Moral Re-Armament - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - which then evolved into AA .


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Dec 29, 2015)

bimble said:


> I'm just going to put this here in case anyone is interested:
> This is is the online version of a little book called "For Sinners Only", published in 1932, which is the root text of where AA and all the 12 step programmes evolved out of ..
> For Sinners Only


I'm still reading the portlandhearingvoices.net piece someone linked to... slow down! 
Fascinating article though.


----------



## killer b (Dec 29, 2015)

answer: they can't. It isn't possible. 

My AA group don't know whether I'm now still dry, drinking occasionally or a raging pisshead. They don't know this for the vast majority of people who stop going to meetings, and there's no way of them starting to monitor it properly. A similar problem faces the recording of success rates for rehab programmes.


----------



## 8den (Dec 29, 2015)

bimble said:


> I think it is not possible. But that due largely to the open door policy of all meetings - you don't have to sign anything, you don't even ever have to give your surname etc.
> 
> The fact remains that the 12 steps started in the 1930s in America and without accepting any state funding at all have mushroomed to be what they are today. So, something works.



I have also hear similar arguments to defend the fact that AAs approach hasn't changed in 60 years, hence it must work. Never mind the staggering leaps we've made in psychology pharmacology and bio chemistry in those 60s years. Our understanding of the physiology of addiction has change enormously in the last 2 decades. AAs unchanging approach should be condemned not lauded. 

Your argument about AAs success is like saying there must be something to evangelical churches because they're growing. 

AA was the only game in town for decades. And in the US you could be forced to attend AA meetings. Even a few years ago it was the only course of action GPs could offer.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Dec 29, 2015)

killer b said:


> This is the best thing I've ever read about the AA (and one of the best things I've ever read about drinking in general). You should all read it.
> 
> http://www.portlandhearingvoices.net/files/HarpersDrunksClub2011-01-0083250.pdf


Brilliant.


----------



## killer b (Dec 29, 2015)

Nails it doesn't he?


----------



## bimble (Dec 29, 2015)

8den said:


> I have also hear similar arguments to defend the fact that AAs approach hasn't changed in 60 years, hence it must work. Never mind the staggering leaps we've made in psychology pharmacology and bio chemistry in those 60s years. Our understanding of the physiology of addiction has change enormously in the last 2 decades. AAs unchanging approach should be condemned not lauded.
> 
> Your argument about AAs success is like saying there must be something to evangelical churches because they're growing.
> 
> AA was the only game in town for decades. And in the US you could be forced to attend AA meetings. Even a few years ago it was the only course of action GPs could offer.



Jeebus Christus! Am I now cast as a stoic defender of AA? Either you read me wrongly or I am very bad at typing. 
But I think your analogy is good (re evangelical churches).


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Dec 29, 2015)

killer b said:


> Nails it doesn't he?


I don't know enough, but it was a great read and joined some dots.


----------



## 8den (Dec 29, 2015)

killer b said:


> How would the AA gather such figures?


Through follow ups of people who attend AA meetings and stop but continue seeking help with addiction. 

Keep in mind the AAs turnover is about 100m a year. It could afford to undertake such a study. 

Btw another gripe about the AA is the pricing of the big book. If they were just committed to curing addiction it would be given away free. Instead the AA Pursue people and actively prosecution people for breach of copyright of the big book.


----------



## killer b (Dec 29, 2015)

8den said:


> Through follow ups of people who attend AA meetings and stop but continue seeking help with addiction.


How would they find these people?


----------



## bimble (Dec 29, 2015)

8den said:


> Through follow ups of people who attend AA meetings and stop but continue seeking help with addiction.
> 
> Keep in mind the AAs turnover is about 100m a year. It could afford to undertake such a study.
> 
> Btw another gripe about the AA is the pricing of the big book. If they were just committed to curing addiction it would be given away free. Instead the AA Pursue people and actively prosecution people for breach of copyright of the big book.



I have a compendium of criticisms of the 12 steppers in my back pocket but I think you're barking up the wrong tree here.

Please substantiate the 100M turnover allegation - and if there is a profit do disclose your source.

The South London meeting I made tea at for a year I was privy to the accounting of and it was basically like this:

People who could put money in the mug did so, average input £1 per week. .
Out of that tea and biscuits and literature was purchased and rent was paid.
If we had more than a tenner excess it was sent to central organisation at the monthly meetup in town (mostly in plastic bags full of coins).


----------



## 8den (Dec 29, 2015)

bimble said:


> Jeebus Christus! Am I now cast as a stoic defender of AA? Either you read me wrongly or I am very bad at typing.
> But I think your analogy is good (re evangelical churches).



Sorry AA just boils my piss. A friend of mine wrote a blog called "stinkin thinkin" criticising AA (for example judges in the US sending juveniles to the same AA groups paedophiles were attending as part of their parole). The blog was forced to shut down after the FBI deemed the death threats its owner was receiving were credible.


----------



## 8den (Dec 29, 2015)

Oh penn and teller ran a great criticism of 12 step programs


----------



## bimble (Dec 29, 2015)

Ye, I watched that thing whilst I was a doubting critical but tea-making stepper. The twelve steps thing is deeply flawed and it's an easy target for fun, and I'm very happy that I don't have to go to meetings anymore but.. it worked for me, in an emergency, and I'm the cynicalest misanthropicest atheist. It's not all bad and it's not The Answer either.


----------

