The article lists what should be non-controversial facts. That AA isn’t for everyone. That other methods may work for some people. And that some people don’t like certain aspects of AA. That’s all true.
The problem with the article is that it starts with the flawed premise that people in AA claim that other methods don’t work, or that everyone who has a problem with alcohol has to follow AA and completely abstain. That then sets up the criticisms of AA in the article, as if AA is somehow preventing problem drinkers from getting help. That line of criticism completely misses the point.
AA is one way for people to stop drinking that, based on experience, has helped millions of people. The other treatments mentioned in the article may or may not work. They certainly don’t have the long history of proof that AA has. And the idea of suggesting to alcoholics that they can go back to controlled drinking rather than abstaining is dangerous.
“And the idea of suggesting to alcoholics that they can go back to controlled drinking rather than abstaining is dangerous.”
How true.
It’s the first drink that gets you drunk...
Thank you.
Just the title suggested empty-headed thinking.
“...follow AA and completely abstain.”
You can achieve recovery from alcoholism without AA but if you are a true alcoholic you ABSOLUTELY CANNOT ever return to controlled drinking.....EVER.
Alcohol to an alcoholic is poison and it WILL eventually destroy or kill them period.
Agreed! Addiction is a mental disease. It's marked by the constant drone of that "devil on your shoulder." It's always, "You're a big boy, you can handle just one drink!" But it NEVER ends with just one. And even if you drink moderately on day 1, day 2 eventually comes, and the snowball ALWAYS starts.
I've found that the best addiction in my life is to myself and the strengthening of my body. Becoming a "gym rat" is easy to start but hard to maintain, and I think that lends well to addictive personalities.
Well said.
As a successful member of NA, I agree with this.