HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pwh@bradley.bradley.edu (Pete Hartman)
Newsgroups: alt.recovery,talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: Abstinence (was: easier?)
Date: 14 Sep 92 18:50:29 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Bradley University

In <1992Sep14.171445.17868@lambda.msfc.nasa.gov> puckett@lambda.msfc.nasa.gov (Jim Puckett) writes:
>pwh@bradley.bradley.edu (Pete Hartman) writes:
>>In <1992Sep11.134636.7799@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> lise@kepler.uucp (80734-romanov) writes:
>>>I am always made uneasy by assertions regarding controlled drinking (or for
>>>that matter recreational drug use).  Why is it so critical to somebody's
>>>recovery that s/he hold on to the hope of drinking/drugging again some day?
>>I think the point is that the often-stated "you must NEVER drink again,
>>or you will RETURN TO THE DARK SIDE" is overstated by quite a bit.
>>Perhaps returning to drink/drugs is not a necessary goal, but to
>>deny that it is possible to do so in some cases is to deny reality,
>I can't stand it!!
>This one made me laugh till it hurt - Get it, huh? "To deny that 
>[returning to drink/drugs] is possible is to deny reality" -
>but to drink/drug is to deny reality, silly!

Sorry, but I don't think so.  Drinking/drugging CAN be a denial of reality,
but it can also simply be a change of your headspace.  My own favorite
example is LSD--it can allow one to get a completely different perspective
on lots of things.  It can also be a complete escape, but NO DRUG *HAS* TO
BE A DENIAL.

>Guys, I'm out of here. As long as you give these folks their druthers
>(Argue with me! I _desperately_ need to prove this point to somebody!)
>they'll keep it up. I'll be on the twelve step list, with the folks who
>are looking for a solution...8-)

I found my own personal solution without a 12 step list.  Are you laughing
and telling me that I'm stupid or still an unrecovered abuser?
-- 
Pete Hartman		       Bradley University	pwh@bradley.bradley.edu
                                   Haazavaa?
From: rdh@Veritas.COM (Robert Hartman)
Newsgroups: alt.recovery
Subject: Re: Abstinence (was: easier?)  (crosstalk alert)
Date: 11 Sep 92 04:34:33 GMT
Organization: VERITAS Software

I just wrote:

[ a lot of stuff that I feel OK with ]

...

>Well, Richard, this is the exact opposite of my experience.

Up to here that is.  The rest is crosstalk.  So please disregard those
last two questions.  I am curious, but I really don't want to put you
on the spot.

Funny how easily I can talk myself into pushing past the boundaries
I advocate.

-r

[crosstalk!]
> ... It is so
>far removed from the approach taken by the 12-step programs I've been
>involved with that I have a hard time understanding how you could
>believe it or why you'd say it.
>
>Why _did_ you say it?
>
>What is it exactly that you're looking for here?
Newsgroups: alt.recovery,talk.politics.drugs
From: enigma@netcom.com (Enigma)
Subject: Re: AA beliefs?
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 92 14:49:27 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <7250@bigbird.hri.com.hri.com> roman@sparc17.hri.com (Roman Budzianowski) writes:
>
>You are missing a lot if you don't have a couple of glasses of good
>white Burgundy with the shrimp scampi.

I would be missing a lot more if I *did*.
-- 
Holly McGrath   <enigma@netcom.com> 
1803 Mission Street, #339          
Santa Cruz, CA 95060              
(408) 479-4072  (voice mail)
From: altshule@skid.ps.uci.edu (Eric Altshuler)
Subject: Re: AA beliefs? 
Newsgroups: alt.recovery
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Date: 11 Sep 92 00:42:00 GMT

> Research over the last 30 years has repeatedly
> confirmed that persons reliably diagnosed as alcoholics can
> sometimes resume normal drinking


Seriously???  I won't dispute it, but I also won't believe it until
I see it in writing.  Please site your research.  Journal names,
universities, research centers, anything.  I would seriously like
to follow up on this, Richard.  Be as specific as posible, so as to
save me footwork.  Thanks.
                             -Eric

P.S.  Be careful, Richard.  You may be helping someone who has been
  incorrectly labled an alcoholic, but you may be hurting someone who
  has been correctly labled an alcoholic, but is in denial about their
  condition.  To give a (correctly labled) alcoholic who is in denial
  the impression that it is posible to drink could be a death sentence.
  The AMA (I was told by my counselor) defines a disease as "a condition
  which if left untreated, leads to death"  I will look this up to be sure.
From: millman@ursa.UUCP (Phillip Millman)
Newsgroups: alt.recovery
Subject: Re: "I've spilled more than you drank"
Date: 5 Sep 92 18:08:07 GMT
Organization: Bear Stearns, NY
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

lldavids@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (lisa lynne davidson) writes:
: Whenever someone who is older tells my boyfriend that, he laughs at them
: and tells them that maybe if they hadn't spilled so much they would have
: gotten here sooner.


An old timer once told me that "He spilled more beer on himself than I ever 
drank!" To which I replied "Probabaly, I'm a whiskey drinker!"

Phillip Millman
millman@bear.com
From: altshule@skid.ps.uci.edu (Eric Altshuler)
Subject: Re: AA beliefs? 
Newsgroups: alt.recovery
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Date: 11 Sep 92 01:18:59 GMT

>The admittedly sparse empirical evidence (it's extremely difficult to
>do reliable research on AA) indicates that the AA program is an
>effective treatment for a small minority of problem drinkers
>(something like 5-10 percent); the great majority would be better off
>with different recovery methods.

5-10 percent?  Where do you get these numbers?  You must have read them
somewhere, heard them somewhere, or made them up.  If you read them
somewhere, I would be very interested in the source.  Otherwise, you
may want to keep your here-say (or imagination) to yourself.  But if
you did read them somewhere, or have any kind of reliable source, please
let us know.  I am a member of AA who feels not enough science, medicine,
psychotherapy, and other methods are discussed.  But I am looking for only
information with sources.

>Unfortunately the more effective methods don't get a tenth of the
>publicity that AA gets, and AA isn't interested in telling anyone 
>about them, so most people don't know about them.

Have to disagree with you here.  AA does not advertise.  No one 
endorses us.  We are a program of attraction rather than promotion.
All word of mouth.  Also, we work in conjunction with medicine,
psychiatrists, and clergy.  Read  "Three talks to Medical Societies
by Bill W.  CoFounder of AA" 
Newsgroups: alt.recovery,talk.politics.drugs
From: weiss872@CLEARWATER.CS.UIDAHO.EDU (Phil Weiss)
Newsgroups: alt.recovery
Subject: Re: AA beliefs?
Date: 10 Sep 92 18:24:05 GMT

> 
> In any case, how we define "alcoholism" is immaterial to Heart
> Dancer's point.  I understood her to say that she repetitively drank
> in such as way as to cause physical, psychological or social harm to
> herself or others, and that she learned to moderate and control her
> drinking without entering a formal treatment program.  I wonder how
> things would have turned out if she had attended AA meetings and was
> talked into believing that she had an incurable disease, that she was
> powerless over alcohol, that the AA program was the only way to
> control the disease, and that she had to abstain from alcohol for the
> rest of her life.
> 

Previously in your post you mention that "AA" belief is that only
self-diagnosis is valid.  Then you mention here that Heart Dancer
may have been talked into being an alcoholic.

You are right that many times people in AA meetings have a tendency
to label other's as alcoholic, either directly or indirectly.

What I do is tell my story (or a little part of it) and tell people
I have found an answer for that insanity.  If they want it, talk to
me.  You are right, not everyone needs AA.  Those people who have
what I have (whatever you want to call it, "alcoholism," "severe
alcoholism," etc.) need AA.  I don't tell ANYONE they have what I
have.

By the way, wondering what might have happened if she was told she
had to abstain from alcohol is fairly pointless.  She did not.

I have met plenty of people who would be and have been harmed by
even one drink.  However, I haven't yet met the person who was
harmed by not drinking.  I don't begrudge those who can.

Phil.
From: dab@ism.isc.com (David A. Butterfield)
Newsgroups: alt.recovery
Subject: Re: easier?
Date: 9 Sep 1992 16:21:21 GMT
Organization: x
NNTP-Posting-Host: change

barbaraj@csc.ti.com writes:
> Somewhere in AA dogma (I'm sure many of you know exactly where!) is the 
> thought about the easier, softer way availed us nothing.  What I hear
> Richard saying is that for some people, the easier, softer way worked.
> I think I am one of those people... [story about learning how to control
> alcohol use without total abstention]...

Why do you think that it is "easier" to learn how to use alcohol
in reasonable quantities than it is to learn how to abstain from
it completely?  It seems to me the former would be much harder.
The former requires learning judgement, to know when and how much
is appropriate for you in your different contexts.  The complete-
abstinance approach gives you a clear, objective measure of whether
you're succeeding or failing:  you either took a drink or you didn't.

Of course, the advantage to learning the more difficult skill would
be that a single drink doesn't break the new pattern, whereas in
a complete-abstinance approach it would.

With food addiction it becomes more obvious that it is important
to teach the judgement necessary to eat in *appropriate* amounts,
rather than simply teaching complete abstinance.  With alcohol
addiction the easier complete-abstinance approach is practical,
but other approaches can also work.

-- 
I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should they be 
considered patriots.  This is one nation under God.
					-- George Bush 8/27/88
From: mtnbiker@singletrack.EBay.Sun.COM (Daniel Abernethy)
Newsgroups: alt.recovery
Subject: Re: No Cigarettes
Date: 10 Sep 1992 17:46:21 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: mtnbiker@singletrack.EBay.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: singletrack.ebay.sun.com

>
>They say that the detoxification of your body takes one month for every year
>that you inserted the toxins.
>
>When I was cleaning out, I kept wondering why I didn't feel too much better,
>either physically or mentally. Changes are very subtle and slow for most folks.
>
>Again, I applaud you for going nicotine free, the best of luck in staying 
>that way.
>
>Robert Burgoyne



Shucks,

I got 47 days, and that means that I have 13 months and 13days to get clean.
I have over 5 months off my DOC/THC, and it has been 4 years since I was
a garbage can.

Cigarettes have been the toughest thing ever.
I feel better, though I am still in much pain.

D

P.S.  Hooray!  I finally get to meet with a therapist, to help me
untangle the knots of my pshyce.  You know, like christmas lights that
are at the bottom of the box.
From: dhawk@well.sf.ca.us (David Hawkins)
Subject: Reflections on Last Week
Keywords: pride cross-posting
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 06:11:14 GMT

In thinking over the postings of last week, I thought of a few things
that I'd summarize here:

1. There was cross-posting going on between this newsgroup and another
-- talk.politics.drugs.  I only realized it after I responded to a
posting and later saw that it was going to two newsgroups.  I would
not normally post to talk.politics.drugs since I don't know what it's
about.  And if I did post there I would want to make sure that my
public relations were based on attraction rather than promotion.  ;-)

2. This newsgroup is a lot more serene if you set your KILL file to
not show you cross-posted articles  - in other words set it to show
you stuff posted to alt.recovery only.

3. I started to post a lot of stuff from 'As Bill Sees It' but settled
for one quote: "It would be a product of false pride to claim that
A.A. is a cure-all, even for alcoholism."  (AA Comes of Age, p. 232.)

later, david
--
David Hawkins  -- dhawk@well.sf.ca.us -- dhawk@netcom.com
"In searching for a meaningful embrace, sometimes my self-respect
took second place."          -- Iggy Pop
Newsgroups: alt.recovery
From: moy@acf3.NYU.EDU (Gloria J. Moy,N.DORM C3,(212)9983456,)
Subject: Re: Untitled
Organization: New York University
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 16:47:00 GMT


Newsgroups: alt.recovery,talk.politics.drugs
From: rdh@Veritas.COM (Robert Hartman)
Newsgroups: alt.recovery
Subject: Re: Amends revisited
Date: 9 Sep 92 20:48:30 GMT
Distribution: alt
Organization: VERITAS Software

In article <1992Sep8.204135.14635@gumby.dsd.trw.com> suhre@meltami.dsd.trw.com () writes:
>
>=====Begin post for Adria=====
>I'm really intrigued with all this talk about making ammends and
>resentments and all.  I just have a few questions that I'd like
>answered if anyone can figure them out:
>     I have a resentment about a previous employer because ...
>     Another one--as a child I was severly abused by my mother...

[details of how she was wronged omitted]

>     Perhaps the Big Book is wrong here.  Perhaps we do not
>have to make ammends for EVERY resentment we have?  

You know, one of the problems that I've had with Step 9 is in thinking
that I had to do it in order to become a good person.  Now I see this
step in a somewhat different light.  Unresolved guilt and resentments
sometimes trigger a relapse.  Given that, this Step is, to me, mainly a
pragmatic measure intended to prevent relapses of that sort.  The fact
that it can also clear the slate of old grudges now appears, to me, to
be a secondary benefit.

When I tried to use this Step to gain some sense of atonement, I
botched it.  That was the wrong reason for doing it.  What I needed to
do was work Steps 4 and 5 properly to obtain relief from guilt and
release from shame.  In some ways I'm still dealing with the
consequences of that mistake.  I tried to make my amends because I felt
that I needed the forgiveness of those I'd wronged.  But the truth is
that I don't.  I can live without that as long as I never do certain
things again.  I'll have to--because in some cases I haven't been
forgiven, and probably never will be.

If I'm making amends to get anything from the person I'd harmed, even
forgiveness, I'm doing it for the wrong reasons, and I need to back up
a few Steps.  What I really need to do first is get through Steps 4 and
5 on the issues that are still unresolved for _me._  If I haven't
already made peace with myself on an issue, I'm not ready to make my
amends.  It is still difficult for me to see this at times, but I think
that it is absolutely true.

I am in a position to make amends when I feel gratitude for having made
peace within myself over an issue or incident.  Only then can I
exercise good judgement in doing what's appropriate to resolve the debt
or grudge with the other person.  Only then can I accept the rejection
that may come because I can't eradicate the harm I did.  Only then can
I appreciate the pain a person who harmed me was in at the time, or
might experience when I confront thier behavior and its consequences
to me.  Only then can I be in a position to respond to remorse with
compassion, whether it be my own or that of the other person.

-r
Newsgroups: alt.recovery,talk.politics.drugs
From: nea@cray.com (Nick Aneshansley)
Subject: Re: Abstinence (was: easier?)
Organization: Cray Research Superservers Inc., San Diego CA, USA
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 17:35:41 GMT

Lise asks:

>Why is it so critical to somebody's recovery that s/he hold on to 
>the hope of drinking/drugging again some day? 

My experience is that giving up *forever* my drug of choice meant 
giving up my primary coping mechanism. And when I did give up my 
drug of choice, it wasn't clear that I could deal with the real 
reasons I used my drug of choice to survive.

In fact when I gave up compulsively eating, and sugar in particu-
lar, it didn't take away the desire. The desire came from the 
relief the eating seemed to give me from the uncomfortable situa-
tion I was in. (BTW food often was the cure for my problems as a 
child. A "treat" [cookie, ice cream ...] would help the tears, 
hurt, or whatever when I went to mom or grandma.) I also know 
that I have multiple coping mechanisms and am capable of finding 
new ones.

For those persons who have trouble understanding the *fear* which 
is generated when I think about giving up my primary coping 
mechanism *forever* and thus say that I will *never* use it 
again, I sometimes suggest that those persons look at their own 
coping mechanism, which is many times a socially acceptable one, 
(righteous indignation, anger, buying things, working, cleaning, 
fixing the problems of others [so I don't have to fix my own], 
relationships, isolating, ...) and see if they could commit to 
*never* doing it again. (I know that some of us don't have any - 
but I recognize that when I didn't have any coping mechanism, I 
was just suffering from denial.)

It is difficult for me to say I will *never*, but I can say that 
I can make a commitment to not do it today. And one day at a 
time, God willing, I can continue to be abstinent.

Lise also says:

>I am always made uneasy by assertions regarding controlled drink-
>ing (or for that matter recreational drug use).  

My sponsor many times asks me why someone else's behavior (usual-
ly my son's) *always* bothers me, in particular if it bothers me 
a *lot*. His contention is that it is many times because a bruise 
of mine from the past has been touched. Until it was touched, it 
didn't bother me. Now that it has been touched, I can deal with 
my bruise, not someone else's behavior.

Just my experiences,
Take what might apply, leave the rest,

Nick
Xref: sparky alt.recovery:3102 talk.politics.drugs:6194
From: carnes@quip.eecs.umich.edu (Richard Carnes)
Newsgroups: alt.recovery,talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: AA beliefs?
Date: 9 Sep 92 14:37:32 GMT
Organization: University of Michigan EECS Dept., Ann Arbor

Dave Polewka inadvertently answers a question which another person
addressed to me: how is AA harmful (as well as helpful)? :

>In a previous article, carnes@sparky.eecs.umich.edu (Richard Carnes) says:
>
>>.....  My point is that the AA/Twelve-Step programs have worked well
>>for *some* persons who have problems with addiction, but for others
>>the same approach obstructs their recovery.  
>
>No, generally they obstruct their own recovery.  They don't go to the
>meetings to learn how to stay sober, but only to get someone off their
>back, or in the hope that they can learn how to drink successfully.
>They arrive late, don't listen for tips they can use, look only for
>something to criticize, and then leave early.  Then they complain that
>A.A. doesn't work. [Analogy deleted] The 12-step program works if you
>want it to work and if you follow the suggested procedure.

I realize that Dave speaks only for himself, but the views he
expresses here are not uncommonly heard.  So let's say Joe Boozer
recognizes that he has a drinking problem.  He starts going to AA
meetings and tries working the program for a while, but he decides,
for whatever reasons, that he prefers not to continue with the program
or the meetings, and he finds that he puts too high a price on his
honesty to "fake it until he makes it".  Joe's doubts and qualms about
the program are treated with condescension by many of the group's
members ("Yes, Joe, I used to feel the same way about the program, way
back in my drinking days").

The local Dave helpfully tells Joe that if he fails to recover it's
his own damn fault, because (according to Dave) Joe only went to AA to
get someone off his back or to learn how to drink successfully, and
because he didn't really want the program to work.  Dave says goodbye,
have fun drinking, and good riddance.  And Joe is told by other AA
members that AA is the only way to stay sober (he also gets this
message from the mass media), and as a result Joe is convinced that
this is true.  

As generally happens, the belief creates the reality: Joe quits AA and
continues to drink excessively.  He doesn't look around for
alternative recovery methods because he believes that AA and
continuing to drink are the only choices available to him.  In short,
AA has given Joe a strong push in the direction of drinking himself to
death.

So this is one way in which AA does harm, as well as good.  I think
it's important to talk about this in alt.recovery, because it's likely
that there are some Joes reading this group and looking for help.

>No, you don't NEED to believe these things, you WANT to believe them.
>Throw out your old way of thinking---that's what got you to where you
>are now.  

Absolutely -- but you apparently believe that alcoholics need to give
up thinking as well as drinking.  Many problem drinkers would be
better off learning new ways of thinking.

Richard Carnes
From: bc@Apple.COM (bill coderre)
Newsgroups: alt.recovery
Subject: Re: This newsgroup (bickering bickering bickering)
Date: 13 Sep 92 17:51:09 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA

weiss872@CLEARWATER.CS.UIDAHO.EDU (Phil Weiss) writes:
|Look, I don't care if you believe AA works or does not work.
|I don't care if you believe that non-AA works or does not work.

|And more importantly, I don't care why you came to either
|conclusion.  And I don't care about any justifications for
|either.

|Here's the deal.  AA worked for me.  Richard and several others
|claim something else worked for them.  Whatever.  I will tell
|you folks what I did.  Richard can tell you what he did.  Robert
|can tell you what he did.  Alex can tell you what he did.  Heart
|Dancer can tell you what she did.  Pick whatever you want and
|live with the consequences.

At the end of many twelve-step meetings, you will hear someone say the
following: "The preceeding are the opinions of the speakers. Take what
you like, and leave the rest."

Recovery is a personal thing. No two people work the same program.

When you hear someone say, "AA is the only way", remember to tack on
the following: "for me."

And when you hear someone say "AA doesn't always work", remember to
tack on: "for me."

There is no need to turn this into a religious war. If you don't like
some program, SHUT UP. Let the people who are actually recovering tell
you what worked for them. If you don't like their program, DO
SOMETHING ELSE.

By the same token, if you have a recovery program that worked for you,
talk about it. Maybe it will help someone.

If you care about recovery, you'll listen to what the people have to
say. Maybe some of the ideas will work for you. Maybe some won't.
There are no guaranties. Do what works for you.

I'm sure that any true twelve-stepper will tell you the same.

bill coderre
wonders why this flamage occurs only on the usenet
Newsgroups: alt.recovery
From: sher@umbc4.umbc.edu (Sherri Crain)
Subject: Re: No Cigarettes
Organization: Univ. of MD, Baltimore County
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 05:39:57 GMT

Congratulations Debra!  

I've been thinking about you a lot lately,as I have one month and 3 days
without a cigarette!

-- 

     Lack of planning on your part                 -sher   
doesn't justify an emergency on my part     sher@umbc3.umbc.edu