Rational Recovery - The New Cure for Substance Addiction

[Serotonin101]

Personally I feel addiction is a disease because not everyone displays addict traits. I have known a FEW weekend IV heroin users who could hold jobs, didn't commit crimes other than the actual purchase and using, and live comfortably. I on the other hand am a textbook example of an addict. Saying addiction isn't a disease is the same as saying addiction doesn't exist and that so called addicts are just lacking will power to quit. Also, why is it that when 2 addicts have a child, the chance of that child being an addict are much higher than that of two "normal" people? This would imply some type of genetic predisposition. Granted there may be other ways besides 12-step programs to cope with addiction, but that's like saying you can drive a car with square wheels, sure you can achieve the same end result, but why make it harder than it has to be?

 

[Swimmingdancer]

Where does this "5%" statistic thrown around quite a bit on BL, yet no one ever seems to be able to produce the results of a peer-reviewed paper from the primary literature backing this claim.

If you had read my post and the included link then you would understand why it is so difficult to get reliable statistics regarding the efficacy of AA/NA. How do you define "success"? Do you include everyone who has ever attended AA/NA, even once, or only the ones that go to meetings every week for over a year? I think the 5% figure might come from the estimates that 90% of people drop out and stop going, and supposedly about 50% of those 10% who continue going on a regular basis end up at some point able to stay abstinent for one year+. I didn't see anyone claiming that there was a reliable peer-reviewed paper which studies the efficacy of 12-step programs but I would definitely be interested in reading one if one exists.

I agree that this is a fantastic book about addiction. The title brings up something that has intrigued me for a while, as the concept of the Hungry Ghosts is a Buddhist concept that describes unquenchable desire, or an unfillable void within. The void is spiritual in nature but the Hungry Ghost only feels need and dissatisfaction and craving for whatever makes them feel temporarily mollified and so keeps increasing the intake (addiction). I think that meditation and the Buddhist concepts of living each present moment are incredibly helpful for anyone fighting with their own mind. I remember a man my son met at a court-ordered drug education class who influenced him more than anyone from any recovery program. He was a recovered heroin addict that had spent most of his adult life in and out of prison, on an endless cycle of kicking and relapsing. He credited meditation with finally quieting the anxiety his mind produced. He told my son, "If you are using in order to deal with all the chaos inside you, can stop using, but the need will still be there to escape the chaos. You have to deal with the chaos." My son sought out free meditations in our community (one was an AA meeting that was only meditation) and he found it very helpful. The power of the mindfulness concepts in our culture which pushes instant gratification, quick fixes and a pill for every discomfort, is immense.

Nice to see that someone else has read it. Great post

just downloaded In The Realm of Hungry Ghosts. Thanks for the rec!

No problem, I hope you like it

 

[Missykins]

...I think the 5% figure might come from the estimates that 90% of people drop out and stop going, and supposedly about 50% of those 10% who continue going on a regular basis end up at some point able to stay abstinent for one year+. I didn't see anyone claiming that there was a reliable peer-reviewed paper which studies the efficacy of 12-step programs but I would definitely be interested in reading one if one exists.

Peer-reviewed, clinical research is what one would require in support of any statistical claim regarding the participation of mutual-help fellowships. A simple search of the primary literature does show in longitudinal studies where patients in treatment programs (who give informed consent to participate, which is different from your neighborhood meeting) do have a greater likelihood of remaining free of substance abuse (MMT, Suboxone, Naltrexone, Antabuse, etc. are not included) when participating in mutual-help (probably a better term) fellowships than patients who do not.

 

[Swimmingdancer]

it was on penn and teller, 20 min in. the results from AA themselves. 5%. suck them ballz.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uU2YliYttnQ

I don't agree with the line of thinking on the Penn and Teller episode because it's very polarizing, they make it seem like your only choices are to believe in AA/NA 100% or to believe addiction is a conscious deliberate choice and all you have to do is choose to not drink or not use drugs. In reality, it is not so simple. If it were, no one would be addicts or alcoholics. I think that it is a huge problem in our society that there are only the "character flaw" model and the "incurable genetic disease" models to choose from. Obviously neither is working in preventing and treating addictions.

Also Penn/Teller didn't explain what the 5% figure was referring to, it kinda looks like it was just referring to the number of people still attending AA meetings after 12 months. All that really proves is that most people stop going to AA fairly quickly.

 

[Swimmingdancer]

Peer-reviewed, clinical research is what one would require in support of any statistical claim regarding the participation of mutual-help fellowships. A simple search of the primary literature does show in longitudinal studies where patients in treatment programs (who give informed consent to participate, which is different from your neighborhood meeting) do have a greater likelihood of remaining free of substance abuse (MMT, Suboxone, Naltrexone, Antabuse, etc. are not included) when participating in mutual-help (probably a better term) fellowships than patients who do not.

I still don't think you are understanding me. There isn't any in-depth peer-reviewed, clinical research on the efficacy of 12-step programs. That doesn't prove that it works. And I was not one of the people claiming that there was any proof that it didn't work.

I would be interesting in reading the study you are referring to.

 

[i against i]

Personally I feel addiction is a disease because not everyone displays addict traits. I have known a FEW weekend IV heroin users who could hold jobs, didn't commit crimes other than the actual purchase and using, and live comfortably. I on the other hand am a textbook example of an addict. Saying addiction isn't a disease is the same as saying addiction doesn't exist and that so called addicts are just lacking will power to quit. Also, why is it that when 2 addicts have a child, the chance of that child being an addict are much higher than that of two "normal" people? This would imply some type of genetic predisposition. Granted there may be other ways besides 12-step programs to cope with addiction, but that's like saying you can drive a car with square wheels, sure you can achieve the same end result, but why make it harder than it has to be?

how is saying it is a normal response of the body to the introduction of substances that trick the brain into thinking they are vital to survival saying addiction doesn't exist? it is providing an actual scientific basis for addiction. addicts do lack the will power to quit, that is why they are addicts.

children learn a lot from their parents. addict parents are not setting a great example so drug use/abuse may be seen as normal. i don't think it's suprising at all.

and your last sentence makes no sense. how is having a government mandated religious, non effective, self deprecating cult as the main stream of addiction treatment good in any way?

I don't agree with the line of thinking on the Penn and Teller episode because it's very polarizing, they make it seem like your only choices are to believe in AA/NA 100% or to believe addiction is a conscious deliberate choice and all you have to do is choose to not drink or not use drugs. In reality, it is not so simple. If it were, no one would be addicts or alcoholics. I think that it is a huge problem in our society that there are only the "character flaw" model and the "incurable genetic disease" models to choose from. Obviously neither is working in preventing and treating addictions.

Also Penn/Teller didn't explain what the 5% figure was referring to, it kinda looks like it was just referring to the number of people still attending AA meetings after 12 months. All that really proves is that most people stop going to AA fairly quickly.

well it is polarizing. either addiction is a disease or it isn't. but they/their guests who were AA fanatics said it should be one option of a wide range or services. AA fanatics are those who are claiming it's the only way. how can a descision to use not be a conscious deliberate choice? no one is forcing you, you having temporarily lost control of yourself, it's a choice. it's not a character flaw, addiction is a biological response to addictive substances. using addictive substances in the first place probably is a character flaw. how could it not be? i love heroin very very much but feel very stupid for trying it, and risking ruining my whole life and wouldn't recommend it to anyone. i could die, i could go to prison, i could lose my job, how is this not a stupid character flaw?

how is it not so simple as just quitting? how else are you going to stop being an addict?

AA mandates that you have to attend for the rest of your life otherwise you will "relapse" so if you leave the program according to them you must have failed.

 

[Swimmingdancer]

well it is polarizing. either addiction is a disease or it isn't. but they/their guests who were AA fanatics said it should be one option of a wide range or services. AA fanatics are those who are claiming it's the only way. how can a descision to use not be a conscious deliberate choice? no one is forcing you, you having temporarily lost control of yourself, it's a choice. it's not a character flaw, addiction is a biological response to addictive substances. using addictive substances in the first place probably is a character flaw. how could it not be? i love heroin very very much but feel very stupid for trying it, and risking ruining my whole life and wouldn't recommend it to anyone. i could die, i could go to prison, i could lose my job, how is this not a stupid character flaw?

how is it not so simple as just quitting? how else are you going to stop being an addict?

AA mandates that you have to attend for the rest of your life otherwise you will "relapse" so if you leave the program according to them you must have failed.

I do not believe that addiction is a conscious deliberate choice. No one would choose that. I believe that addiction, while not a disease, is caused by the brain. Our brains have developed in a way to make us prone to addiction, largely due to environmental factors beyond our control. It is not our "fault". Once we have found a drug (or behaviour) of choice, we are certainly not consciously choosing to become addicted or to keep doing it, we do it because our brain mistakenly considers it necessary for survival. It would be like saying breathing is a conscious choice. We are just reacting without even thinking about it. But that doesn't mean that we can't choose to take responsibility and do something about it. It definitely is not easy though. One way we can start is by recognizing that we don't actually need drugs and that that feeling of a need to use is not real and is just coming from the mis-wired circuits in our brain. That is the principle behind AVRT.

I didn't exactly say "it is not as simple as just quitting", but anyway, what I meant was that we can't just choose to quit through brute force of willpower, and that stopping is much easier said than done, (obviously). We have to work at understanding our addiction, the reasons behind it, and make major changes in our lives, our minds and our behaviours.