On Wednesday, August 28, 2013 8:31:08 PM UTC-5, Mr. Luddite wrote:

I didn't think it

overly pushes religion at all, and certainly doesn't push any

particular theology. I got the it really doesn't care what you

believe in as long as you acknowledge that there are bigger things in

the universe than yourselves.


Exactly right, Rich. But it seems that to Harry that *IS* religion"



I certainly don't think it "shoves" religion down anyone's throats.

It doesn't of course- that is, unless you believe it does...

On Wed, 28 Aug 2013 21:31:08 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

I got the it really doesn't care what you
believe in as long as you acknowledge that there are bigger things in
the universe than yourselves.

===

That's an important first step. Literally, the more we learn about
the universe, the stranger it becomes. It is doubtful to me that we
will ever understand the whole enchilada since new layers of the onion
always seem to appear as the old ones are peeled away. Some choose to
explain it with science, others with religion. In the end it may not
make any difference but I lean towards science.

On 8/28/2013 11:28 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Wed, 28 Aug 2013 21:31:08 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

I got the it really doesn't care what you
believe in as long as you acknowledge that there are bigger things in
the universe than yourselves.

===

That's an important first step. Literally, the more we learn about
the universe, the stranger it becomes. It is doubtful to me that we
will ever understand the whole enchilada since new layers of the onion
always seem to appear as the old ones are peeled away. Some choose to
explain it with science, others with religion. In the end it may not
make any difference but I lean towards science.


Ha, I believe God *is* a Scientist... of sorts.... chew on that

On Wed, 28 Aug 2013 21:31:08 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:



"Tim" wrote in message
...

On Wednesday, August 28, 2013 11:12:24 AM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 8/28/13 11:22 AM, wrote:

The religious underpinnings and overlay of 12-step programs are
off-putting for many addicts. A lot of people simply don't want
religion
shoved down their throats.


There's a lot of substance/alcohol abusers who while in the `12-step'
programs , follow the religious overtones closely.

---------------------

Last year when I was involved with a family member's rehab and first
steps with recovery I got a copy of the "Big Book" to read what the
12 step thing was all about. I had never heard of the "Big Book" and
had only heard about the "12 step program" in the form of jokes. I
had no clue what they actually were. Pretty naïve I guess for a guy
my age.

I confess that I didn't read the Big Book cover to cover, but I read
enough to get the history, ideas and concepts. I didn't think it
overly pushes religion at all, and certainly doesn't push any
particular theology. I got the it really doesn't care what you
believe in as long as you acknowledge that there are bigger things in
the universe than yourselves.

I was also fortunate to have several people who I had met (mostly
through the guitar shop) who confided their status as recovering
addicts to me. Prior to that I had no idea. They helped me and my
wife deal with my family member's addiction and explained their
respective adaptations of and implementation of the 12 step program as
it applied to them . Some took it more literally than others, but
it seemed to benefit them all.

I certainly don't think it "shoves" religion down anyone's throats.


AA pushes the concept of a 'higher power', which may be different for different folks. The higher
power may be God, for those who believe, or it may be peer pressure from the group, or maybe just a
'big brother'.

One thing is for sure, the success of AA groups does not put a lot of money into the pockets of
psychologists. However, many hospitals for those needing psychological treatment also have an AA
group on the premises. (That is also true for many military hospitals.)

John (Gun Nut) H.
--

Hope you're having a great day!

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 28 Aug 2013 21:31:08 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:



"Tim" wrote in message
...

On Wednesday, August 28, 2013 11:12:24 AM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 8/28/13 11:22 AM, wrote:

The religious underpinnings and overlay of 12-step programs are
off-putting for many addicts. A lot of people simply don't want
religion
shoved down their throats.


There's a lot of substance/alcohol abusers who while in the `12-step'
programs , follow the religious overtones closely.

---------------------

Last year when I was involved with a family member's rehab and first
steps with recovery I got a copy of the "Big Book" to read what the
12 step thing was all about. I had never heard of the "Big Book" and
had only heard about the "12 step program" in the form of jokes. I
had no clue what they actually were. Pretty naïve I guess for a guy
my age.

I confess that I didn't read the Big Book cover to cover, but I read
enough to get the history, ideas and concepts. I didn't think it
overly pushes religion at all, and certainly doesn't push any
particular theology. I got the it really doesn't care what you
believe in as long as you acknowledge that there are bigger things in
the universe than yourselves.

I was also fortunate to have several people who I had met (mostly
through the guitar shop) who confided their status as recovering
addicts to me. Prior to that I had no idea. They helped me and my
wife deal with my family member's addiction and explained their
respective adaptations of and implementation of the 12 step program as
it applied to them . Some took it more literally than others, but
it seemed to benefit them all.

I certainly don't think it "shoves" religion down anyone's throats.


AA pushes the concept of a 'higher power', which may be different for different folks. The higher
power may be God, for those who believe, or it may be peer pressure from the group, or maybe just a
'big brother'.

One thing is for sure, the success of AA groups does not put a lot of money into the pockets of
psychologists. However, many hospitals for those needing psychological treatment also have an AA
group on the premises. (That is also true for many military hospitals.)

John (Gun Nut) H.

Okay, Bill W.

On 8/28/13 1:08 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 28 Aug 2013 12:12:24 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:


Has anyone had any better success with drug addiction?


The 12-Step programs are self-help and reassurance programs, they are
not the sort of "therapy" many addicts need. That therapy incorporates
traditional therapy, whether individual or group, and in many cases,
prescription therapy. If a drug addict goes cold turkey by
himself/herself and right into some 12-step program, the addict has a
good chance of falling over and dying.

The religious underpinnings and overlay of 12-step programs are
off-putting for many addicts. A lot of people simply don't want religion
shoved down their throats.


Conventional therapy is substituting one drug for another.
Is Methadone really that much better than Heroin?
I understand drug companies make the money not drug smugglers but the
drug is about the same.

Religion based programs do have the advantage that they are
substituting a belief for a drug but I guess you think that is as bad.

I do agree it is not the kind of thing that will be successful if it
is just a sentence from a court. They have to believe it will work or
it won't work. The reality is these things don't really work anyway
until the addict decides they don't want to be addicted anymore.
For some, there is no "bottom" that is low enough to do that.

Maybe we should just have drug zones and let them kill themselves.
Free drugs, all you want anytime you want them and come in every
morning with a Bobcat to pick up the bodies.


There are many types of what you call "conventional" therapy. The
12-step programs are not really therapy; they are support mechanisms.

And, once again, if you are an addict on serious **** like heroin, and
you stop cold turkey without using a prescribed substitute under careful
watch, you might die while trying to get clean.

And, no, I don't believe "faith healing" is the antidote for physical or
mental/emotional illnesses. God didn't make you sick and god isn't going
to cure you.

On 8/28/13 3:50 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 28 Aug 2013 13:17:52 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 8/28/13 1:08 PM, wrote:


Conventional therapy is substituting one drug for another.
Is Methadone really that much better than Heroin?
I understand drug companies make the money not drug smugglers but the
drug is about the same.

Religion based programs do have the advantage that they are
substituting a belief for a drug but I guess you think that is as bad.

I do agree it is not the kind of thing that will be successful if it
is just a sentence from a court. They have to believe it will work or
it won't work. The reality is these things don't really work anyway
until the addict decides they don't want to be addicted anymore.
For some, there is no "bottom" that is low enough to do that.

Maybe we should just have drug zones and let them kill themselves.
Free drugs, all you want anytime you want them and come in every
morning with a Bobcat to pick up the bodies.


There are many types of what you call "conventional" therapy. The
12-step programs are not really therapy; they are support mechanisms.

And, once again, if you are an addict on serious **** like heroin, and
you stop cold turkey without using a prescribed substitute under careful
watch, you might die while trying to get clean.

Most of these people continue to use when they are in the 12 step
program

Really? What stat base are you using for that claim?


And, no, I don't believe "faith healing" is the antidote for physical or
mental/emotional illnesses. God didn't make you sick and god isn't going
to cure you.


This isn't "healing" it is simply substituting faith for drugs.
It works for some people and I would not deny them the opportunity.
I agree with you, this should not be court ordered, per se but it
should be an option in court ordered rehab.

Rehab, any kind, is generally ineffective over the long haul.
People either decide to stop or they don't but you can't make them if
they don't want to.


Right, so let's not even try, right?

On 8/28/13 4:16 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 28 Aug 2013 15:58:34 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:



Rehab, any kind, is generally ineffective over the long haul.
People either decide to stop or they don't but you can't make them if
they don't want to.


Right, so let's not even try, right?



The question is "how many times"?

The guy next door to me has been to rehab about 10 times, at tax payer
expense and it has not made a lick of difference. He calls it "going
to the spa"
This is the same guy who has been "Baker acted" about a dozen times
(involuntary assessment for "up to 72 hours")
He has that down to about 4 hours because he knows what to say.

They tried jail the last time and he was supposed to be locked up for
a while but I still see him walking around. (if you can call that
shuffling stumble "walking")

I tried to help for years but I gave up on him 3 arrests ago.
This guy can really tell a story and make you believe he wants to get
better but once a junkie, always a junkie.



Well, we all know that your years of experience with the addict next
door plus, of course, your years of experience treating addicts of all
varieties plus your educational background plus your years of
supervision give you the wherewithal to make black or white
pronouncements about the efficacy of all manner of treatment for all
manner of addicts.

There's no question that successfully treating substance abuse is not an
easy task, and that a high percentage of addicts fall back into their
bad habits. But that doesn't mean we should give up on addicts and
addiction treatment.

Oh, and "once a junkie, always a junkie" is hyperbolic bull****.

In article ,
says...

On 8/28/13 4:16 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 28 Aug 2013 15:58:34 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:



Rehab, any kind, is generally ineffective over the long haul.
People either decide to stop or they don't but you can't make them if
they don't want to.


Right, so let's not even try, right?



The question is "how many times"?

The guy next door to me has been to rehab about 10 times, at tax payer
expense and it has not made a lick of difference. He calls it "going
to the spa"
This is the same guy who has been "Baker acted" about a dozen times
(involuntary assessment for "up to 72 hours")
He has that down to about 4 hours because he knows what to say.

They tried jail the last time and he was supposed to be locked up for
a while but I still see him walking around. (if you can call that
shuffling stumble "walking")

I tried to help for years but I gave up on him 3 arrests ago.
This guy can really tell a story and make you believe he wants to get
better but once a junkie, always a junkie.



Well, we all know that your years of experience with the addict next
door plus, of course, your years of experience treating addicts of all
varieties plus your educational background plus your years of
supervision give you the wherewithal to make black or white
pronouncements about the efficacy of all manner of treatment for all
manner of addicts.

There's no question that successfully treating substance abuse is not an
easy task, and that a high percentage of addicts fall back into their
bad habits. But that doesn't mean we should give up on addicts and
addiction treatment.

Oh, and "once a junkie, always a junkie" is hyperbolic bull****.

No, it's not.

On 8/28/13 5:11 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 28 Aug 2013 16:58:47 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 8/28/13 4:16 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 28 Aug 2013 15:58:34 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:



Rehab, any kind, is generally ineffective over the long haul.
People either decide to stop or they don't but you can't make them if
they don't want to.


Right, so let's not even try, right?



The question is "how many times"?

The guy next door to me has been to rehab about 10 times, at tax payer
expense and it has not made a lick of difference. He calls it "going
to the spa"
This is the same guy who has been "Baker acted" about a dozen times
(involuntary assessment for "up to 72 hours")
He has that down to about 4 hours because he knows what to say.

They tried jail the last time and he was supposed to be locked up for
a while but I still see him walking around. (if you can call that
shuffling stumble "walking")

I tried to help for years but I gave up on him 3 arrests ago.
This guy can really tell a story and make you believe he wants to get
better but once a junkie, always a junkie.



Well, we all know that your years of experience with the addict next
door plus, of course, your years of experience treating addicts of all
varieties plus your educational background plus your years of
supervision give you the wherewithal to make black or white
pronouncements about the efficacy of all manner of treatment for all
manner of addicts.

There's no question that successfully treating substance abuse is not an
easy task, and that a high percentage of addicts fall back into their
bad habits. But that doesn't mean we should give up on addicts and
addiction treatment.

Oh, and "once a junkie, always a junkie" is hyperbolic bull****.

How many do you know?
How many were cured?

The guy next door is just a good example of lots of experience I have
with a number of these people.
Maybe it is just because I don't live in that rarified air of academia
you live in.
Addicts there are more deeply closeted and hidden from view by
families rich enough to keep them under wraps.


You may have "experienced" relationships of some sort with a limited
number of addicts, but you have no professional education, experience,
or credentials in addiction or its treatment, nor are you considered any
sort of expert in the field. You have a few anecdotes.