• DPMC Moderators: thegreenhand | tryptakid
  • Drug Policy & Media Coverage Welcome Guest
    View threads about
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Drug Busts Megathread Video Megathread

The Hijacking of Sobriety by the Recovery Industrial Complex

Jabberwocky

Frumious Bandersnatch
Joined
Nov 3, 1999
Messages
84,998
The Hijacking of Sobriety by the Recovery Movement
Sobriety isn't an abstinence fixation; it's about having purpose


Stanton Peele | 4/22/14 said:
Recently, The New York Times reviewed a film about octogenarian chanteuse-comedienne Elaine Stritch. The 89-year-old Stritch decided some time ago to give up alcohol, then resumed drinking—but only one drink per day—in her 80s. Here’s how the Times described this development: “As a recovering alcoholic, Ms. Stritch, after more than two decades of sobriety, decides to allow herself one drink a day, usually a cosmopolitan. She seems to be abiding by her rule, though it can’t be easy."

The Times seems to say Stritch is no longer "sober" since she decided to start having a daily drink, a decision “that she seems to be abiding by.” Note the condescension towards Stritch and many others like her. It seems nearly impossible that Stritch could, at her age, hide excessive drinking while being filmed. But the Times questions whether Stritch may be doing so.

This degrading babble traces back to the appropriation of the term sobriety by Alcoholics Anonymous (AA), which has grown into a large and powerful recovery movement that dominates American thinking about addiction. Before AA hijacked the term, "sober" simply meant not being currently intoxicated. Now, sober is a state of being—one you can only achieve through total, lifelong abstinence if you ever drank alcoholically.

According to AA and the recovery movement, no former alcoholic can drink moderately. Any drinking whatsoever, according to these absolutists, and you’re no longer "sober." One might think that a person who drinks regularly in a controlled, non-intoxicated manner is obviously not an alcoholic. Wrong!

When I suggested to my AA friend Ken (not his real name) that Stritch shows one-time alcoholics can control their drinking, he objected strenuously. For Ken, “the fact that she has to limit herself to one drink a day proves she’s an alcoholic." That's right, drinking in a controlled manner proves you’re an uncontrolled drinker.

Many alcoholics can reduce or moderate their drinking

Ken says he's "never known an alcoholic to resume drinking in a controlled manner.” Ken mainly knows ex-drinkers, like himself, who are in AA. But this group is a small percentage of recovered alcoholics, the large majority of whom never go to AA or enter rehab.

According to the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (NESARC)—a massive government study of 43,000 Americans' lifetime alcohol and drug use—about 75 percent of people who recover from alcohol dependence do so without seeking any kind of help, including specialty rehab programs and Alcoholics Anonymous. And only 13 percent of people with alcohol dependence ever receive specialty alcohol treatment. (Note that 13 percent is the upper figure for 12-step recovery, since ever participating does not mean the person recovered due to AA or rehab.)

The NESARC study also revealed that these recovered alcoholics don’t as a rule abstain. “Twenty years after the onset of alcohol dependence, three-fourths of individuals are in full recovery," it notes. "More than half of those who have fully recovered drink at low-risk levels without symptoms of alcohol dependence.”

A fixation on abstinence hinders recovery

For recovery absolutists, no one recovers from alcoholism without AA, just as no one can recover without giving up drinking forever. What arrogance! Who gave these self-appointed experts the power to tell everyone how they must achieve recovery?

Just as the recovery movement dictates the language of recovery and sobriety, it also tries to dictate the only true way to achieve recovery. The focus on abstinence is the alpha and omega of the 12 steps. But it requires people in recovery to decide that their lives revolve around an empty space, which is not only undesirable but unsustainable. Abstinence is fine as a recovery plan for either the short or the long term. But you can't commit to nothingness, only to health, goals, and plans.

In my book with Ilse Thompson, Recover! Stop Thinking Like an Addict and Reclaim Your Life with The PERFECT Program, we note that sobriety is best built on having a purpose in life. Recovery means that you embrace a life of engagement and meaning; that you overcome your addiction in the service of your values, plans, and life goals. It doesn't necessarily mean that you never take a sip of alcohol or any consciousness-altering substance again, ever.

We have ample evidence that "addiction is a solvable coping problem rather than a chronic, recurring disease," as a recent Science News article put it. Being positively engaged with life encourages better coping skills and natural recovery. A number of long-term studies support this idea.

The author of one of these studies, Gene Heyman, found that "being married, having a college degree, fearing arrest, facing high drug prices, and developing drug-related health concerns made heavy cocaine, marijuana, and alcohol users more apt to quit or substantially cut back."

Aren’t these the obvious reasons that people would quit or cut back on their addictions? Obvious, that is, unless you're convinced of AA’s disease model of alcoholism (or its modern neuro-scientific equivalent, the “chronic brain disease” theory of addiction). As long as these perverse ways of viewing addiction hold us captive, we won’t recognize the most evident paths to achieving recovery and sobriety. In fact, we won’t even understand what these terms mean.
http://reason.com/archives/2014/03/22/alcoholics-recovery-and-sobriety-meaning

Sorry that it's a few months old. Hope it hasn't been already posted. It's just sooooo good. Like that Vice article posted on the current heroin "epidemic." Quality, quality.
 
they make taking a drink or drug into a total, utter failure, and shame you, shun you etc. lose respect and all that. which may make someone just want to keep drinking/using rather than dealing with their bullshit.
 
Before AA hijacked the term, "sober" simply meant not being currently intoxicated.

AA hijacked the term "sobriety," just like 'The Establishment' hijacked the term "drug abuse" in order to make it sound like the "drug abuser" is committing a heinous, felonious crime worthy of a severe/lengthy punishment in a maximum security prison.

This was further perpetuated by claims from post-Nixon US Presidential Administrations with statements like the following:

- "If you're a drug user, you are an accomplice to murder." - Nancy Reagen

What arrogance! Who gave these self-appointed experts the power to tell everyone how they must achieve recovery?

Not to sound like I'm wallowing in self-pity, but I too faced some rather foul language from "experts" because I "refused to accept accountability" of my "abuse of narcotics."

We continue to debate about what exactly addiction is - a disease? A coping mechanism - an effect of persistent human unhappiness and suffering? A choice? How is it that there are "experts" in the field of addiction when they can't even agree on what addiction is? Seems awfully arrogant, even if some of these "experts" have purely humble, noble reasons for studying/working in this field.

The author of one of these studies, Gene Heyman, found that "being married, having a college degree, fearing arrest, facing high drug prices, and developing drug-related health concerns made heavy cocaine, marijuana, and alcohol users more apt to quit or substantially cut back.

Fearing arrest is not enough to get someone desperate enough to stop - trust me on that. I've been busted more than once, and it didn't stop me.

Facing high drug prices will likely result in the user switching to a similar high, preferably in the same drug family (e.g. oxycodone --> heroin). At least, it did in my case, and it looks like it has for many others lately.

Drug-related health concerns is more likely to get me to focus even more so on harm reduction instead of quitting altogether.

Even if someone is married with children, if his or her drug of choice offers a profound enough relief of whatever symptoms (s)he is trying to relieve, it may be enough for that person to stick with the drug and risk his/her marriage in order to maintain relief.

Education has little to do with it IME, as I have a completed post-secondary education, yet, still resorted to using.

The bottom line is that everyone has a limit, or a critical threshold that once crossed results in unpredictable behavior, such as self-medication.

Think of it in the short term as inflicting enough acute pain on someone as to have him/her scream in agony. Their tolerance has been reached and passed.

Others may find relief from shooting a bunch of people whom (s)he associates with someone who caused (or significantly contributed to) his/her threshold being crossed.

In reality, this topic can be complicated, which is why I noted that it results in unpredictable behavior. That's my theory anyways.
 
(or its modern neuro-scientific equivalent, the “chronic brain disease” theory of addiction)

While I enjoyed reading the article and agree with the vast majority of what it said, this part I take issue with because we know without a doubt that regular use of addictive drugs does cause changes in the brain which worsen the symptoms of addiction. Now that certainly isn't the same thing as a ''chronic brain disease,'' and it certainly isn't the whole of what addiction is (I agree far more with what the article said and the concept of self medication), but it is a factor that has to be taken into account when trying to undo addiction.

The multifaceted nature of addiction is, I think, part of what makes it so hard to treat. But I certainly don't think indoctrinating people into ideologies which strip them of power and self determination then force them to revolve their life around not being an addict, by going into a room full of other not addicts and recounting addiction war stories multiple times a week, is going to do the job.
 
"The casual user may think when he takes a line of cocaine or smokes a joint in the privacy of his nice condo, listening to his expensive stereo, that he`s somehow not bothering anyone. But there is a trail of death and destruction that leads directly to his door. I`m saying that if you`re a casual drug user, you are an accomplice to murder" - Nancy Reagan
Real Villains In The Drug War
March 06, 1988|By Stephen Chapman
Chicago Tribune

You can't just put quotes around whatever you feel like.
 
"The casual user may think when he takes a line of cocaine or smokes a joint in the privacy of his nice condo, listening to his expensive stereo, that he`s somehow not bothering anyone. But there is a trail of death and destruction that leads directly to his door. I`m saying that if you`re a casual drug user, you are an accomplice to murder" - Nancy Reagan
Real Villains In The Drug War
March 06, 1988|By Stephen Chapman
Chicago Tribune

You can't just put quotes around whatever you feel like.

Not sure what your intent here was other than to inform, but this does kinda strengthen ro's argument further when he mentions the abridged version of the same quote.
 
""The casual user may think when he takes a line of cocaine or smokes a joint in the privacy of his nice condo, listening to his expensive stereo, that he`s somehow not bothering anyone. But there is a trail of death and destruction that leads directly to his door. I`m saying that if you`re a casual drug user, you are an accomplice to murder" - Nancy Reagan" - THEY are the ones who started it, with their racist, anti Mexican, anti black, Judeo-Christian, repressive control freak mindset. By persecuting drug users and suppliers, they force prices up, because greater risks demand greater rewards, and when big money becomes involved, the violence level rises.

She is the one who promoted the 'Just say no' approach, and just how well has that worked?
 
Last edited:
"The casual user may think when he takes a line of cocaine or smokes a joint in the privacy of his nice condo, listening to his expensive stereo, that he`s somehow not bothering anyone. But there is a trail of death and destruction that leads directly to his door. I`m saying that if you`re a casual drug user, you are an accomplice to murder" - Nancy Reagan
Real Villains In The Drug War
March 06, 1988|By Stephen Chapman
Chicago Tribune

You can't just put quotes around whatever you feel like.

Nancy Reagen's "trail of death and destruction that leads directly to his door" has been influenced by bureaucrats like her husband and their racially, religiously, and politically-motivated oppressive views/laws/ideology.

It was the same when alcohol was banned - crime ballooned across the US.

You must be getting desperate if you're trying to patronize me because I'm not using block quotations.

By the way, Nancy's cute little analogy can be applied to the fucking jewelery she was wearing when making that statement (or happened to own and still owns). And I'm sure it can be applied to many other of her assets. And let's not forget the lavish, alcohol-fueled lifestyle she and her husband lived in the Hollywood limelight.

There's also allegations that Nancy turned a blind eye to crack dealing in LA in order to gain funds for a Nicaraguan Resistance group which was trying to overthrow the government in that nation decades ago.

Spare me the double-standards propaganda from a bunch of hypocrites whose amendments to drug laws has resulted in more death and destruction than a sensible drug policy ever would.
 
Last edited:
Ronald Reagan was the President, not a bureaucrat. Nancy Reagan was his wife and nobody voted to put her in office, so she is.

I am patronizing quotation marks.
 
Ronald Reagan was the President, not a bureaucrat. Nancy Reagan was his wife and nobody voted to put her in office, so she is.

I am patronizing quotation marks.

Play Grammar Police all you want - bureaucrats and politicians have long overlapped.
 
By the way, Nancy's cute little analogy can be applied to the fucking jewelery she was wearing when making that statement (or happened to own and still owns). And I'm sure it can be applied to many other of her assets. And let's not forget the lavish, alcohol-fueled lifestyle she and her husband lived in the Hollywood limelight.

That's what bothers me, the whole of Western civilization is built on the exploitation of the population of third world countries and the destruction of the environment in those countries, drugs are no different. Unless you're living a self sustaining lifestyle in a Cabin in in the woods or some kind of commune, you have no ground to stand on arguing that people shouldn't do drugs because of the violence the drug trade causes.
 
Top