On Thu, 29 Aug 2013 15:34:25 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 29 Aug 2013 13:43:17 -0400, John H
wrote:

Nicotine is a common replacement drug. The Friends of Bill W tend to
be heavy smokers. That may be the only place I have ever been overcome
by second hand smoke (escorting my brother in law to a few meetings)

Many AA meetings are held in a non-smoking venue.

In this politically correct world, that does not surprise me. I wonder
what their success rates are.

Well, if smokers are attending, they must be serious about quitting. I would have had a rough time
going without a cigarette for an hour or two while attending a meeting. I wouldn't expect that
non-smokers would be less inclined to quit alcohol or drugs because they're in a smoke-free
environment.

John (Gun Nut) H.
--

Hope you're having a great day!

On Thu, 29 Aug 2013 14:43:09 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 8/29/13 2:35 PM, iBoaterer wrote:
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.


I wonder if Herring still attends AA meetings.

Whether I did, do, or will - what business is it of yours?

John (Gun Nut) H.
--

Hope you're having a great day!

On Thu, 29 Aug 2013 13:42:08 -0400, John H
wrote:

Substance abuse is a medical condition; being conservatrash Is a choice!
?

The effects of substance abuse may be a medical condition. The actual abuse is a choice

===

Thank you, I was going to say that but you beat me to it.

I'm sure Harry has no problem with substance abuse since it provides
rationale for big government spending and helps to keep his wife in
business.

On 8/29/13 5:55 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Thu, 29 Aug 2013 13:42:08 -0400, John H
wrote:

Substance abuse is a medical condition; being conservatrash Is a choice!
?

The effects of substance abuse may be a medical condition. The actual abuse is a choice

===

Thank you, I was going to say that but you beat me to it.

I'm sure Harry has no problem with substance abuse since it provides
rationale for big government spending and helps to keep his wife in
business.



That's really stupid and ignorant.

Here's just *one* example of why:

Many Americans who are injured on the job or, say, injured in car
accidents, are prescribed addicting, narcotic painkillers by physicians
who are not monitoring their patients closely enough. As a result, a
number of these folks become addicted to the pain pills and can't get
themselves weaned from them. Some end up shopping for prescriptions or
moving on to heroin. It's hardly a choice when you don't have access to
a pain management doctor and you have to keep popping pills so you can
try to work for a living.

Herring comes down pretty hard on those who he thinks are not meeting
his standard of being an alcoholic whose substance abuse is temporarily
under control.

I wonder if Wayne thinks that if government spending for sick people was
cut back, there would be more money to waste on his former bankster
employer when it finds itself on the ropes again.

On Thu, 29 Aug 2013 18:15:33 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

Many Americans who are injured on the job or, say, injured in car
accidents, are prescribed addicting, narcotic painkillers by physicians
who are not monitoring their patients closely enough.

===

I would hazzard a guess that the vast majority of substance abusers
are not doing it with legitimate perscription drugs (LPDs). And LPDs
are not the reason why people are shooting each other in the ghetto or
running drugs in from Mexico.

On Thu, 29 Aug 2013 18:15:33 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 8/29/13 5:55 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Thu, 29 Aug 2013 13:42:08 -0400, John H
wrote:

Substance abuse is a medical condition; being conservatrash Is a choice!
?

The effects of substance abuse may be a medical condition. The actual abuse is a choice

===

Thank you, I was going to say that but you beat me to it.

I'm sure Harry has no problem with substance abuse since it provides
rationale for big government spending and helps to keep his wife in
business.



That's really stupid and ignorant.

Here's just *one* example of why:

Many Americans who are injured on the job or, say, injured in car
accidents, are prescribed addicting, narcotic painkillers by physicians
who are not monitoring their patients closely enough. As a result, a
number of these folks become addicted to the pain pills and can't get
themselves weaned from them. Some end up shopping for prescriptions or
moving on to heroin. It's hardly a choice when you don't have access to
a pain management doctor and you have to keep popping pills so you can
try to work for a living.

Herring comes down pretty hard on those who he thinks are not meeting
his standard of being an alcoholic whose substance abuse is temporarily
under control.

I wonder if Wayne thinks that if government spending for sick people was
cut back, there would be more money to waste on his former bankster
employer when it finds itself on the ropes again.

So Rush Limbaugh had a great excuse, heh?

At some point in the pain pill taking process, the taker knows he's taking the pills for something
other than pain relief. At that point the taker makes a decision to cut down or continue. Yeah, it
can be hard.

John (Gun Nut) H.
--

Hope you're having a great day!

On Thu, 29 Aug 2013 18:50:14 -0400, Wayne.B wrote:

On Thu, 29 Aug 2013 18:15:33 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

Many Americans who are injured on the job or, say, injured in car
accidents, are prescribed addicting, narcotic painkillers by physicians
who are not monitoring their patients closely enough.

===

I would hazzard a guess that the vast majority of substance abusers
are not doing it with legitimate perscription drugs (LPDs). And LPDs
are not the reason why people are shooting each other in the ghetto or
running drugs in from Mexico.

Harry's just trying to make a good excuse for Limbaugh's addiction.

John (Gun Nut) H.
--

Hope you're having a great day!

In article , says...

On 8/29/13 5:55 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Thu, 29 Aug 2013 13:42:08 -0400, John H
wrote:

Substance abuse is a medical condition; being conservatrash Is a choice!
?

The effects of substance abuse may be a medical condition. The actual abuse is a choice

===

Thank you, I was going to say that but you beat me to it.

I'm sure Harry has no problem with substance abuse since it provides
rationale for big government spending and helps to keep his wife in
business.



That's really stupid and ignorant.

Here's just *one* example of why:

Many Americans who are injured on the job or, say, injured in car
accidents, are prescribed addicting, narcotic painkillers by physicians
who are not monitoring their patients closely enough. As a result, a
number of these folks become addicted to the pain pills and can't get
themselves weaned from them. Some end up shopping for prescriptions or
moving on to heroin. It's hardly a choice when you don't have access to
a pain management doctor and you have to keep popping pills so you can
try to work for a living.

I had a back problem for 24 years before it progressed to an emergency situation. Sure my
back hurt just about every day of my adult life but, I dealt with the pain and didn't turn
into a pain pill begging addict. When it got bad were I couldn't walk upright I got pain
pills to get me through but, then I returned to normal back pain and dealt with it. Many
don't get addicted to the pain medication, they use it when needed and when the medicine runs
out it is gone.

Herring comes down pretty hard on those who he thinks are not meeting
his standard of being an alcoholic whose substance abuse is temporarily
under control.

I would venture to say the John has more real world experience with subatance abuse than you
or your wife do, that is unless both you and your wife are addicts of some kind.

I wonder if Wayne thinks that if government spending for sick people was
cut back, there would be more money to waste on his former bankster
employer when it finds itself on the ropes again.

Government does not spend money well, they throw it around and even if there is the slight
possibility that there may be someone who has a smidgen of a chance will benefit we keep the
multi hundreds of million dollar program continued. When something is not effective and
achieving its stated goals it should be shutdown and the money spent on something different.

On 8/29/13 7:23 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 29 Aug 2013 16:17:49 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

What is your experience?


I'm married to a first-rate psychotherapist who has seen and
successfully treated a great number of substance abusers in several
settings over her two decades as a licensed practitioner. She sometimes
talks about what works and what doesn't for various folks who remain
anonymous. Her doctoral dissertation was on a significant aspect of
substance abuse, and she has written other papers that also have been
published. She consults with NiMH professionals on substance abuse topics.

NIMH and NIH seem to have a paucity of data online about their success
rates. Are you just going to counter my anecdotes with your wife's
anecdotes?


Additionally, I've read "the lit" that comes to the house (professional
papers and journals) and I know thought my union work a lot of
construction workers in many trades who at some point in their careers
suffered severe injuries, were prescribed heavy duty meds, got hooked,
and then got clean and stayed clean.

There is a difference between a person who took a course of pain
killer drugs adjunct to an injury or an operation who was clinically
addicted and someone who simply chose to use drugs and is chronically
addicted.

In spite of that I still refuse pain pills.

As a result, I wouldn't make the sweeping statements you make about
substance abusers, or that, as you implied, a large number of those who
disdain the 12 step programs because of their religious-osity just do so
so they can remain outside of a therapeutic or support service.


They do so because it is largely a volunteer effort without all of the
credentials a medical program requires, yet they still seem to have
similar long term outcomes.

Again, if you can find data, we can read it together.
I looked on the various NIH/CHC and government drug abuse sites for
several hours and "outcome" studies are very rare.


You might have more success with a university search system, a paid or
the LC search system. My wife used all three to gather the papers needed
for her disseration.

My wife has sent people to 12-step programs *after* they have been
through professional detox and therapy programs, and she has talked
about better outcomes for some patients on buprenorphine instead of
methadone, but such is way over my pay grade of understanding.

On Thu, 29 Aug 2013 19:23:43 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 29 Aug 2013 16:17:49 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

What is your experience?


I'm married to a first-rate psychotherapist who has seen and
successfully treated a great number of substance abusers in several
settings over her two decades as a licensed practitioner. She sometimes
talks about what works and what doesn't for various folks who remain
anonymous. Her doctoral dissertation was on a significant aspect of
substance abuse, and she has written other papers that also have been
published. She consults with NiMH professionals on substance abuse topics.

NIMH and NIH seem to have a paucity of data online about their success
rates. Are you just going to counter my anecdotes with your wife's
anecdotes?


Additionally, I've read "the lit" that comes to the house (professional
papers and journals) and I know thought my union work a lot of
construction workers in many trades who at some point in their careers
suffered severe injuries, were prescribed heavy duty meds, got hooked,
and then got clean and stayed clean.

There is a difference between a person who took a course of pain
killer drugs adjunct to an injury or an operation who was clinically
addicted and someone who simply chose to use drugs and is chronically
addicted.

In spite of that I still refuse pain pills.

As a result, I wouldn't make the sweeping statements you make about
substance abusers, or that, as you implied, a large number of those who
disdain the 12 step programs because of their religious-osity just do so
so they can remain outside of a therapeutic or support service.


They do so because it is largely a volunteer effort without all of the
credentials a medical program requires, yet they still seem to have
similar long term outcomes.

Again, if you can find data, we can read it together.
I looked on the various NIH/CHC and government drug abuse sites for
several hours and "outcome" studies are very rare.

But at least you know there's some truth to what's there.

John (Gun Nut) H.
--

Hope you're having a great day!