|
Liz Y. commented on your wall post: "Does it matter 74% or 95%? i was told frequently in treatment only 1 in a hundred make it and i've sussed out you will only stop when yr sick and tired, therefore stopping for yourself. all aa / na is for is to make money out of a self-help book, making you pay £15 for convensions, although they make out it's voluntry contribution. i have been treated with distain if i say i want to make a donation. i kept relapsing for years going to na. i read the orange papers and have not used for four years because then i took responsibility for myself. thank you mr O xxxx"
Hi Liz,
Thanks for the note. I'm really happy to hear that you got a handle on your problem,
and have four years of healthy living now. Life is getting better, isn't it?
Have a good day and a good life.
== Orange
[More bird photos below, here.]
Dear Sir, I recetly stumbeled upon your website, and you have really done your work. This is exactly how I have felt, "something is rotten in AA" I was despretly wanting to share your work with hundreds of my peers, if possible I would very much like to learn how you pieced it all together, where did it come from. unfortunatly I would not ask this but our blind society demands it do you have credentials? I would very much like to know everything possible on how you came to everything because you are on spot with it and i do belive you have the info to reinvestigate, research the alcoholic/drug "recovery" culture. I very much appreciate it, thank you for your time.
-Andrew E., college student, with Associates of Arts degree.
Hello Andrew,
Thank you for the letter and the compliments.
I have answered the autobiographical and historical questions several times, so I will point you to
the list of answers,
here.
Credentials? I dropped out of the University of California at Berkeley in 1966, and
never got around to going back. I joke that my real degree is a Ph.D. from the School of
Hard Knox.
Actually, my best credentials are that I have 9 3/4 years clean and sober now, and I'm
just counting down the months until I have 10 years. Only 3 to go.
My, how time flies when you are goofing off.
And I'm happy with the fact that I've been able to stay sober and drug-free, and even smoke-free,
without joining a cult religion or throwing my rational thinking mind into the trashcan.
I think that's worth something.
Have a good day now.
== Orange
Date: Sat, July 24, 2010 3:15 pm (answered 31 July 2010) Hi Orange, Thanks for finding the time to reply to me. I love your acronym for GOD! Thanks for the information very interesting and it does help. Not to boast but I am 10 days sober now and feel loads better. For the first time I feel I do not want to drink and that I am in control. It helps to have your website out there telling the individual that they can do it without the dreaded AA. All the best Chris.
Hello Chris,
Thanks for the reply. It is good to hear that you are doing well.
Congratulations on your sobriety. That brightens up the morning cup of coffee. (Yes, it's 6:59 AM,
Saturday morning, and
the little Blue Jay outside my window has been squawking since 6 AM, so I'm awake and up.)
I am reminded of the
old Chinese proverb about, "The longest journey begins with the first step."
And then they also have one like, "When you have taken the first step, the journey is
halfways done."
So have a good life now. Hang in there. It does get easier with time. Now I'm not saying
that it's going to always be easy, but it does get easier.
Oh, and which acronym for the A.A. "G.O.D" was that? The
"Group Of Drunks", or the "Group Of Devils"?
The "Group Of Devils" is my favorite. Considering that the
"Group Of Drunks" occasionally rapes
underage girls and tells sick people not to take their medications, it seems appropriate.
So have a good day now.
== Orange
Date: Sat, July 24, 2010 4:14 pm (answered 31 July 2010) Hi Orange, re: "Unfortunately, you start off with a false premise, that someone is "biased" if they criticize something. I am very opposed to the Nazis and Nazi philosophy, and have criticized it often. Does that mean that I am "biased" on the subject of Nazis, —Well clearly, yes it does — look up the definition of bias.
Okay, let's look it up. What the American Heritage Dictionary, Second College Edition, says, is:
The second definition stresses the inability to make an impartial judgement, and prejudice.
I reject that definition. I actually started off thinking that A.A. was a great organization,
the biggest and best self-help group in America. I learned the truth from seeing it in action.
I now oppose A.A. because of the facts that I have learned.
I guess I will have to plead guilty to being
"biased" against A.A. in the same way as I am "biased"
against Adolf Hitler and the Nazis, and for the same reason too: After
many years of careful study of the facts, I decided that they do bad things.
However, such "bias", as you call it, does not mean that someone's writings are unreliable,
as you implied in your previous letter.
re:
"You see, Jeff, (or maybe you don't see,) some things really should be criticized, like lies, cult religion, and foisting quack medicine on sick people." —AA does not administer medicine ? nor is it a religion ?
No, A.A. does not administer medicine. Just the opposite. A.A. has a bad reputation for telling
sponsees not to take their medications. That makes A.A. a terrible kind of quackery.
Sick people are occasionally killed by bad sponsors giving bad medical instructions.
This is old hat. This problem was studied and quantified ten years ago.
Some A.A. defenders did a survey on A.A. members' attitudes
towards medications, and they claimed that A.A. members were
not at all dogmatic about medications — only 17% of the sponsors
were against them. What the writer of the article did not seem
to be able to realize is: that meant that any person with both
a psychiatric and a drug or alcohol problem had a 17% chance of
getting a bad sponsor who just might kill him or her with stupid orders...
(See: Alcoholics Anonymous and the Use of Medications to Prevent
Relapse: An Anonymous Survey of Member Attitudes. ROBERT G. RYCHTARIK;
GERARD J. CONNORS; KURT H. DERMEN; PAUL R. STASIEWICZ.
Journal of Studies on Alcohol, Jan 2000 v61 i1 p134.)
If you take an old Colt .45 six-shooter, and put one bullet in the revolver, and play
Russian Roulette with it, the odds of getting killed are 16.67%.
If you go to A.A., the odds of getting a sponsor who plays quack doctor are 17%.
And yes, A.A. is most assuredly a religion. That is
so well established that in court, it
is called "a moot point." A.A. members go to religious meetings where they incant the Holy
Words of Saint Wilson, who declared that G.O.D., or "Higher Power",
will save you from Demon Rum, but only
if you confess all of your sins, and also follow all of his other Commandments,
and surrender your fate and will to "Higher Power".
—AA, a cult — possibly yes ? —Is a cult a bad thing ? Wikipedia definition of cult — I've highlighted the important part of the definition
The word cult pejoratively refers to a group whose beliefs or practices are reasonably considered strange.[1] The word originally denoted a system of ritual practices. The narrower, derogatory sense of the word is a product of the 20th century, especially since the 1980s, and is considered subjective, and is a result of the anti-cult movement, which uses the word in reference to groups seen as authoritarian, exploitative and possibly dangerous. The word implies a group which is a minority in society.
That seems like a fair definition of "cult". And it fits Alcoholics Anonymous
like a glove.
But The Random House Unabridged Dictionary has an even better definition of a cult:
That is Alcoholics Anonymous, with its magical "spiritual" cure,
"discovered" (really, copied and plagiarized) by William Griffith Wilson, and others.
You can read all of the definitions of "cult" from a couple of dictionaries,
here.
re:
"It is immoral to not criticize such things."Thats a ridiculous statement, today I have'nt critisized the Nazi's, to make use of your analogy, does that then make me immoral ?
If you were a member of the Nazi Party back in the nineteen-thirties and -forties,
and just "went along" with what they were doing, without
voicing any criticism or opposition, then, yes, that would be immoral.
I seem to recall that the British people held Sir Oswald Mosley in contempt after World War II.
And they hanged "Lord Haw-Haw" (William Joyce).
Likewise, being a member of A.A., and actually defending the organization, and even promoting it,
while ignoring the bad things that it does, is both intellectually dishonest and immoral.
re:
"Yes, alcohol abuse and alcohol addiction are a serious problem. But that does not make Alcoholics Anonymous a good organization." Does a lack of high success rate make it a bad organisation ?
No, not just a lack of a high success rate. But then, when A.A. lies to the world and claims that
it does have a great success rate, that is bad.
"RARELY have we seen a person fail, who has thoroughly followed our path..."
and all of that.
Now that kind of lying is immoral, and bad. Lying to sick people about what might heal them is really
heartless.
re:
"I agree that A.A. brainwashes people. But that is not good." —Rubbish — it is good — it saves peoples lives — that is good.
Saves people? What is the A.A. success rate? A.A. no more saves people than does playing tiddly-winks
as a treatment program for alcoholism.
Now it's time for the question that A.A. members have never answered honestly:
re:
"Not only is A.A. brainwashing not necessary for recovery, it actually makes things worse. A.A. brainwashing increases the rate of binge drinking and increases the death rate in alcoholics." —Totally subjective you have no hard evidence to support this properly.
Wrong. I have plenty of very hard evidence, including an 8-year-long test conducted by one
of the leaders of Alcoholics Anonymous. And he is the man who established that Alcoholics
Anonymous has an appalling death rate, coupled with a zero-percent improvement.
No way of treating alcohol abuse killed the alcoholics more than A.A. did.
And that member of the Board of Trustees of Alcoholics Anonymous World Services, Inc.
was Prof. Dr. George E. Vaillant. The whole story
of Dr. Vaillant's attempt to prove that A.A. works is
here.
And then we have several other good tests of A.A., too, also properly controlled tests of A.A.,
and they also found that A.A. was a failure that made alcoholics worse off, not better.
Start reading here.
re:
"By the way, the vast majority of alcohol abusers who get a grip and stop their self-destructive drinking do it without A.A. and its brainwashing. The Harvard Medical School said that." —Where is the extensive research done by the Harvard Medical School that supports this statement — are Harvard Medical School the Authority on Alcoholism — I think not ?
Now you are getting to be ridiculous. The Harvard Medical School doesn't know anything about alcohol abuse
or alcohol addiction? Unreal. But a bunch of relapsing drunkards in a cult meeting room are
"the experts on addiction"? And they know more than all of the real doctors at the
Harvard Medical School? Nothing like self-congratulatory bullshit. Such arrogance.
If you want to read the article by the Harvard Medical School, you can download it here:
HMHL_addictions.zip
re:
"Have a good day." — —thanks and you too Orange I have had a look at your responses regarding "what works". The simple fact is that we do not yet know what works. "Working" implies that we have somehow succeeded in the field of 'curing' or dealing with alcoholism. The truth is we have not succeeded at all in the treatment of alcoholism — whether in or out of AA. The success rate of recovery in AA is not good, the success rate of recovery without AA is not good. Incidentally I have been with 3 people ( not AA members ) whose doctor has told them they needed stop drinking or die. 2 out of the 3 of them chose death by drink, and they told me so, they simply did not want help from anywhere or anyone — that alcoholism at its most 'effective'.
To claim that "we don't yet know what works" is just plain wrong. It is also a dishonest dodge.
In other paragraphs, you insisted that A.A. works great — saves plenty of lives.
But when faced with
a table of ratings
of various treatment methods,
you suddenly change the rap to "we don't know the truth... yet."
Well, we do know the truth, and the truth is that A.A. does not work. It's just a cult.
It is sad that some people do choose to die rather than quit drinking. And again, you are revealing
that it is a choice. We are not powerless over alcohol. A.A. is wrong.
We have power over our addictions and bad habits, and we can choose to live, or choose to die.
At the moment nothing is really "working" effectively is it. When a program exists that has a success rate of maybe 70-80% recovery then we'll say it "works". Nothing we have here in the UK comes even remotely close to that — and I'm sure thats true in the US also. So we agree that A.A. does not work. So in the absence of anything that is guarenteed to work I'll stick with AA. — it does the trick for me. take care,Kevin
I hope that you choose to stick with sobriety. Group membership is irrelevant.
Have a good day now.
== Orange
[The story of Carmen continues here.]
hello orange~ i have been reading bits and pieces of your writing and i remain curious. i am not an AA member, nor somebody in recovery, per se...i am in the process of, what i perceive as, losing my partner to AA. i have had my concerns about AA long before my partner began going to meetings. i believe that the program is something that can provide certain things, like a social scene, and can be relatively harmless as long as the participant maintains strong boundaries around participation, continues to think critically, and remains committed to their sober/recovering life outside of AA. in reading some of your material, my one greatest curiosity is this: what is the true goal of the 'cult'? is it just to amass members? is it financial gain? if so, who benefits? is it power? if so, who benefits? i can imagine people responding defensively to any criticism of AA saying 'why would AA want to manipulate people into the program and keep them there if they didn't truly want to help them with their alcoholism?' what is at the heart of AA in your opinion?
looking forward to your response,
Hello Rjae,
Thanks for a great question. I'm sorry to hear about your difficulties with your partner.
And the answer is, "A.A. is different things to different
people. So there are a bunch of different answers to that question."
Some of the true believers in meetings just really want company, and they want their
favorite superstitions validated by hearing other people saying the same things.
Many of them fear that they will
die without A.A. And they also fear that they will relapse and die drunk if they
don't go recruiting and get new members.
On the other hand, there are leaders at the top who get money, sex, power, status, and
fame out of it. There have been
some hard-core A.A. cult leaders
getting exposed in the news in the last couple of years.
We have discussed this question before, a few times, and came up with lists of answers,
so let me point you to them,
Have a good day.
== Orange
Orange, thank you for this site. It really feels like a breath of fresh air after years of wondering if I was alone with all this. 20 Years With an AA Zealot: My story goes back nearly 20 years ago, when I myself stopped drinking. I entered into a clinic for psychological evaluation shortly before my 20th birthday. I was depressed and had a host of emotional issues, and I drank too much. I had not been a heavy drinker for more than a year, but I knew I couldn't do it much anymore. After a week in this clinic, I was diagnosed with severe clinical depression and put on two drugs, prozac and sinequan. My therapist and the psychiatrist told me it would take a bit before they kicked in, so I just needed to wait and sort out my issues. A few days later, the resident drug and alcohol counselor invited me into a quiet room where he absolutely GRILLED me over the idea that I was an alcoholic. He had heard things that were reported from the group sessions, twisted them up and decided, without even talking to me, that I was an alcoholic. Using standard bullshit that they use (the denial loop, distortion of a truth they've never seen, and taking a gossip's word as absolute truth), this man let me have it for upwards of an hour. He determined that I was an alcoholic. Now, the kicker is that he had no degree. He was just the resident 12 step old timer who was given a job to herd people into AA. He proceeded to grill, badger, and try to cajole me into AA. I eventually just agreed to anything he said to get the fuck out of the room. The big one was that he told me I should get off the meds and that I'll never get better unless I join the group. I was flabbergasted. I was told that I was depressed and that my drinking exacerbated it. I had issues to work out but I didn't fit the bill of alcoholic. It would be wise for me to not drink. This "intervention" was a shock to me, as well as my therapist and the psychiatrist. They let him have it. After that he left me alone but I was still subject to dealing with listening to his bullshit stories. Luckily, they were rare, and after 8 weeks I went home to get my life back together. I thought things were going to be better. At the time I went into the hospital, my older brother left for a program similar to mine to quit drinking too. I wasn't sure if this would help him or not. He was an asshole when drunk, really misplaced a lot of anger towards everyone around him, and made life hell in general. When he came back, he was much, much worse. The guy I mentioned above? Just like him, but my brother didn't know when to back off. It was a 24 hour threat of him doing an intervention on any of the rest of us, solo, whether we wanted it or not. Essentially, the cult walked right into our door. My brother wouldn't quit. This went on for TEN YEARS. No one could talk to him. He kept busting out slogans and tried continuously to use the denial loop (you just can't see it because you are in denial). Over and over and over again. And the way he talked about these people. Once someone went to AA, it's like a glowing light was placed above them. They could do no wrong. He went so far as to inquire about EVERY one of my friends. If he heard anything in the group, even a rumor, it was gospel. He then went so far as to suggest new friends, because my best friend supposedly had a drug problem. So did the housekeeper. Everyone was an alcoholic, a drug addict. I kid you not, he went so far as to point out the issues that the family dog had with burying bones. Honestly, I can't make this stuff up. If someone had the slightest inclination to look at alcohol, bam! They were alcoholics. He turned against us — we were all "sick". Despite the fact that supposedly they are asked to avoid promotion, he went ahead and kept plugging away. To this day, he'll still rear up and let loose with slogans, etc.. He can't stop it. Now granted, not EVERYONE who joins the group is like that. My brother is mentally ill, I'm sure of it. But you know what? I've asked SEVERAL AA members about this. They are aware of this sort of behavior, but don't seem to be bothered by it. To them, it seemed unfortunate at worse. Shouldn't this be a HUGE part of this program? Making sure it's about YOU first and noticing this sort of thing? Overall they seem to be okay with it. I was told to tell him to work his own program. Telling one of these zealots to do this seems to fuel them on. They audacity and self righteousness is stunning. Over the years he's ended up with egg on his face several times. My oldest brother died of pancreatic cancer. The AA zealot was sure he was misdiagnosed, because it had to be simple pancreatis from drinking too much. Even after he passed away, he was sure he wasn't wrong. Then another brother was diagnosed as bipolar (I know, screwed up family). Zealot was SURE that he's misdiagnosed, must be an addict/alcoholic. A few years later, he spoke with another brother's wife, who was formerly married to an alcohol/drug counselor similar to the one mentioned above. This guy was beloved for his crotchety, hard line reputation. Why do they love these old, bitter assholes so much? I mean really, the guy stayed sober for a long time. He doesn't seem peaceful/serene, etc.. He was a mainstay at the local chapter that zealot attended. My brother stuck his nose in and talked to this cretin, who began calling his ex, then my older brother's wife. One thing led to another, poison in the ear, and she was convinced at how evil my brother was, and promptly divorced him. Well, my brother luckily found a way to listen in on the conversation. This so called counselor did EVERYTHING possible to poison her against him. Is this the type of person to be revered? When it all came out, and it was found out that she was having an affair with this guy, I told zealot what had happened. It scrambled his brain. He couldn't compute that this guy was anything but a demigod in his eyes, and that he could do no wrong. He raced to justify it to all of us. At that point we knew, despite him supposedly leaving the program, it still had it's clutches in him. I've run into a few more of these guys while working retail — the zealot types. They are ready for an intervention on the spot. I actually had to kick one out of my store because he was bound and determined to make every single last moment he was at my establishment into a "meeting", whether any of us cared or not. This is what gets me — the whole cult aspect in the denial loop. I supposedly can't see that I'm sick, hurting. I am powerless over alcohol, determined by who? If I don't follow the steps I won't be "better". For some, maybe it isn't a cult. But dammit, they should watch for these types who are bound and determined to make it into one. Not just shrug about it, but really watch them. What's more, is that some of these revered people turn out to be quite nasty. I was reading the Midgroup stuff [Midtown Group], and having seen it myself, I can understand how that happens. Years of sobriety doesn't grant one wisdom, nor does claiming to have worked the supposed steps. It's really about "do as I say". And where are the standards and controls? These people aren't licensed to practice any medical or psychological evaluations, yet they tell people to get off meds. They make evaluations based on their own experience. They are revered for not drinking. I know, it can be hard. But it doesn't make one smart, enlightened, or worth listening to. Who watches out for THESE people? With so many people packed into the doors, some unwillingly, who is watching over them? The funny part of all this... I left my clinic, got off my medication... and haven't had a drop since. Not one single drop of alcohol. Despite being told I was an alcoholic. Despite being told I would never make it. I was told I would end up being a "dry drunk". Really? What does that mean anyhow? How is it quantified? WHO gets to determine what that is? I don't drink. I get along with people. I deal with my issues when I need to. I work hard and live a healthy lifestyle. I just don't drink. It'll be 20 years next May. Without alcohol.
Anyhow, rant over. Keep up the good work Orange!
Hello Steve,
Thank you very much for the story. That says a lot. And congratulations on getting your life together,
and keeping it together, and 20 years of sobriety — without the cult.
And of course you are right about the "dry drunk" accusation. It's
just another non-existent
"spiritual disease",
like
"codependency",
something that they use to scare people who don't want to conform to the cult:
"The big bad booze bogeyman will get you if you don't join our
organization and follow our orders."
The fanatical A.A. recruiters are really something else, aren't they? They remind me of vampires:
Once a person has been bitten and infected, he runs around looking for the opportunity to
bite somebody else and make another of his unholy kind.
Oh well, have a good day anyway.
== Orange
Date: Mon, July 26, 2010 11:38 pm (answered 4 August 2010) Sorry, Orange, I tend to lump folks into large categories sometimes, and since most anti-nics (even newbys) were long time supporters of the war on drugs or free thought as i like to view it. It is nice though, to know we see eye to eye on that issue at least. Thank you for taking the time to address the portion of my comments pertaining to pot.You failed however to address the issue of tobacco propaganda which, though I stray from the point occasionally, was the real subject of the communication. I fully understand non smokers not wanting to smell cigarettes, just as I dont care to smell farts, or even worse, perfume and cologne of any grade; the more expensive the more offensive. My point is that unlike the slogan Ive invented "the more expensive the more offensive" , portions of your site saying things like
This year, 300,000 American teenagers will take the S.A.T. tests to determine their futures. is propaganda any way you cut it up. Those poor 730,00 dead kids. They wont need to worry about anything, it all been done by an official who knows best what you should worry over and even does it for you. Let me try to make this point clear from an average person whos not an expert but seem to be one of very few not being part of a large ignorant collective brain(for lack of a better term).I THINK YOU ARE AN UNWITTING PROPAGANDIST FOR THE ANTI-TOBACCO CAMPAIGN.The surgeon general stated on the record that being in the same room with a lit cigarette being smoked for 20 min. a day, its the same as if you were smoking 1 pack a day yourself. Do you have a problem with that statement? Does it bother you that everything that occurs today occurs worldwide? Do you know Prescott Bush had his vast business assets seized for continued support of Hitler well into the war by congress and no charges were brought against him? Do you know how the succeeding king George I and II lay path for another Bush to rule? Do you know the world bankers have funded both sides of every war? why? Somebody has already taken control of the world, and some of the smartest guys in recent history all pointed to the kazzars. Ford, Edison, Tesla was suspicious, T. Jefferson, Lincoln, Washington, JFK, and many many others. heres one example Jet setters heading to Cuba next week for the annual Havana Cigar Festival need not panic: although the home of the Cohiba banned smoking in enclosed public places on Feb. 7, festival venues will be exempt. Despite a lax kickoff in Cuba, similar bans in other countries have managed to clear the air:? Italy On Jan. 10, smoking was banned in enclosed public places except in separately ventilated rooms. A week later, a police sweep of 1,263 bars and restaurants turned up only nine violators. Says a Roman: "I'm for the ban because it helps me smoke less." As proof, cigarette sales nationwide are down 23%.? Bhutan This Himalayan nation became the first to prohibit not only smoking in public, but also all sales of tobacco. In a kingdom with few smokers (owing in part to a local belief that traces the tobacco plant's origin to a she-devil), the black-market price of a pack of Marlboros has doubled, to $2.60, since the ban took effect in December.? Ireland The Emerald Isle last March became the first country to ban smoking in virtually all workplaces, including pubs. The Office of Tobacco Control, in a six-month update, reported 94% compliance. A hotline for snitches still gets up to 50 calls a week.? India Enforcement has been slack since smoking was banned in public places last May along with most tobacco ads. When asked how many fines have been issued, a spokesman for the New Delhi police snaps, "Speak to the government directly. They pass these laws. We assume they have officers to enforce these laws as well." --By Julie Rawe. Reported by TIME's foreign correspondent this is good too The History Of The House Of Rothschildi By Andrew Hitchcock 10-31-9 The Rothschilds have been in control of the world for a very long time, their tentacles reaching into many aspects of our daily lives, as is documented in the following timeline. However, before you jump to the timeline, please read this invaluable introduction which will tell you who the Rothschilds are as oppose to who they claim to be. The Rothschilds claim that they are Jewish, when in fact they are Khazars. They are from a country called Khazaria, which occupied the land locked between the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea which is now predominantly occupied by Georgia. The reason the Rothschilds claim to be Jewish is that the Khazars under the instruction of the King, converted to the Jewish faith in 740 A.D., but of course that did not include converting their Asiatic Mongolian genes to the genes of the Jewish people. You will find that approximately 90% of people in the world today who call themselves Jews are actually Khazars, or as they like to be known, Ashkenazi Jews. These people knowingly lie to the world with their claims that the land of Israel is theirs by birthright, when in actual fact their real homeland is over 800 miles away in Georgia. So, next time you hear an Israeli Prime Minister bleating about the so- called persecution of the Jews, consider this, every Prime Minister of Israel has been an Ashkenazi Jew. [SNIP! What followed was 125 Kbytes of conspiracy theory, including the Rothschilds, the Illuminati, three centuries of international conspiracies and manipulation of governments, and on and on... I really don't believe in censorship, but that is too much, and has nothing to do with alcoholism or drug addiction or recovery, or anything relevant.]
Hi again, Kryssi,
Well, starting at the top, I am not an "AN UNWITTING PROPAGANDIST FOR THE ANTI-TOBACCO CAMPAIGN."
I am very consciously, wittingly part of the anti-tobacco campaign. I can say without a doubt
that tobacco is the worst drug that I ever got addicted to. Not even heroin or cocaine hurt me
or wrecked my life for 30 years like how tobacco did.
So yes, I have a lot of negative things to say about tobacco, and I want to warn other people about it.
I think you have a point when you criticize someone — the surgeon general? — who
said that exposure to a little second-hand smoke is
worse than smoking a pack a day. My personal experience is that actually smoking the cigarettes
is far worse for your health than just being around someone else who is smoking.
Such exaggeration doesn't help to inform the public of the truth.
And we need more truth, and more true facts, above all.
You are obviously upset about the bans on tobacco and smoking around the world.
That really brings up a big philosophical question: Is any government entitled to dictate what
the people may eat, drink, smoke, shoot, snort, or otherwise consume?
If tobacco should not be outlawed, then what about poppy juice? Or marijuana?
Or alcohol? Or coffee?
Also: is any company entitled to lie to our children with advertising, and encourage
young people to consume tobacco, or alcohol, or heroin, or speed, or cocaine, or any drug?
How about advertising for soft drinks that contain caffeine and artificial sweeteners
or High Fructose Corn Syrup?
I have a lot more questions than answers. But one thing I do know for
sure is that tobacco is a terrible drug, and if all of the tobacco in
the world suddenly totally vanished off of the planet, it wouldn't
bother me at all.
Have a good day now.
== Orange
Thank you for producing and hosting your marvelous website! I found it today and I am saving it to my favorites. I am the sibling of a former Straight Incorporated survivor. Your writings confirm many observations of my own, and I appreciate your courage in holding AA's, etc. feet to the fire. They are — as you say — cults. As are the countless spin-off programs. I especially appreciate your brilliant use of LOGIC, how you are using their own dogmas to illustrate the hypocrisy and propaganda. No outside critique is even necessary as they surely do hang by their own words. Thank you, Kelley M. Key Largo, FL
Hello Kelley,
Thank you for the letter and the compliments. Sorry to take so long to answer. I just plugged
a thumb drive into my computer and found three letters from April on it. Having to move to
a new home is enough to disrupt your whole system, and get you all disorganized.
Well, I'm finally finding all of the old letters. (I think. Until I find some more.)
So you have a sibling who was in
Straight?
Bummer. I wonder how some of those people manage to
live, and cope with daily life, after what was done to them. And to think that kind of abuse
was done to them "for their own good".
Worse yet, such abuse is still going on today. Not as much, but it's still happening,
here and there.
Have a good day now.
== Orange
I can't say that I agree with you in every particular but I will have to say that the basics of your philosophy about the Lizard brain, which I embraced for about 5 years served me quite well indeed! It was difficult fighting that Lizard but I spent some time and did it. I kind of thought that had I won. And I did win a significant battle, no doubt about it. 2 years later, my father called me up to congratulate me on my sobriety and I was kind of like "What? Oh, yeah, thanks, I guess. I've been operating like a normal person for a good couple of months, I suppose... Yay, Me?" I know he meant well but it actually surprised me and I feel kind of bad that my tone was kind of dismissive with him. I was kind of sickened to be reminded of the time that I was in thrall to the Lizard but more irritated by presumption that it was something like a day to day preoccupation with me. So, a couple of years after that, I thought I'd experiment. A little.
"What has this exercise in denial netted you? No friends no mate and a marriage to an unreliable dead end, minimum wage, job that eats up all your hours not spent prospecting for a little bit on the side, for little financial gain and next to no recognition"? That was my excuse. To experiment. Sooo not a good idea. It's way worse, second time around. I think that my body, even as it has aged, had kind of healed from some of the abuse I put it through in my youth. I don't get hungover anymore. It's like I'm 20 years old again! Except for the fact that my brain immediately takes an express elevator to the penthouse of psychopathy and bad behavior where I left my worst drunkest self, years ago. Which means that I end up drinking insane amounts of beer over the course of one or two days in full or partial black out. This is scary. I wasn't even this bad at my worst and this is bad. I think I might have crossed into a bit of physical dependency also, a bit, as of late.. So, file this with the, you probably ought to consider abstinence, long term... You can't go back again. Once you wear those grooves into your brain with chemicals and behaviors you are stuck with them and they are a liability because they are so easily and cheaply accessed by the enemy from within. Did you know that they have people manning satellites for evidence of ancient Roman roads in places like London, England? I got complacent. I didn't understand that I was digging foundations and laying paving bricks when I felt as if I were blazing trails in a new forest. Had no idea that my Lizard would bugger off and leave me alone until it got really good intel from space about my ancient vulnerabilities.
Hello K.S.,
Thanks for the letter and the compliments.
Now, to dive right into stormy seas, I don't know if you should call your recent
experience a "relapse". You said that you wanted to experiment, so you did.
Okay, call it an experiment.
And now you have done the experiment, and you know the results.
I did exactly the same experiment about 19 years ago. I had three years of perfect
sobriety. Not one sip of beer, nothing, no cheating whatsoever for three years.
It got to be so easy that I was just cruising on autopilot. It was just a habit.
Instead of habitually drinking, I was habitually not drinking.
Many days, I didn't even think about it.
I didn't even realize that I had my third anniversary, not at the time.
Later, I was looking at a calendar, and suddenly realized that I had had my
third anniversary three weeks earlier.
I thought, "It shouldn't be this easy." I was badly misinformed about the true
nature of alcoholism. I had seen all of the usual A.A. propaganda
movies where the guy is calling up his sponsor on Saturday night and crying about how
he is about to take a drink, and the sponsor is saying, "Hang on. Don't do it, I'll be right
over."
And the sponsor comes and holds the guy's hand for half of the night
and keeps him from drinking.
I didn't go through any of that. I didn't even have a sponsor. I just decided to quit and
stay quit, and I did it.
So at the 3-year point, I thought, "It shouldn't be this easy." The A.A. misinformation
claimed another victim. That planted a seed of doubt in my mind, and I began to wonder
if I was really an alcoholic at all. I thought that maybe the counselor who said that
I was one was just trying to fill her quota. (Three years earlier, I had gotten a DWI,
and went through "the mill", including a counselor who believed in
"codependency",
and all of that nonsense.)
And then I thought, "Not an alcoholic? What about
going into D.T.'s
when you quit?"
And then the other voice said, "Oh, that wasn't really D.T.'s, just a minor reaction.
Remember what that woman at the A.A. meeting said, when she was bragging about
her withdrawal? How they had to tie her down to the bed for three days,
and she went into convulsions? Now that was D.T.'s. She said that
your experience was just a minor reaction to quitting alcohol, remember?
You aren't really an alcoholic, not like her."
I didn't drink right away. But a seed of doubt had been planted, and it slowly grew.
A few months later, I was at a friend's birthday party, and
it was wall-to-wall booze and beer. The only house rule was, when you took enough beer
out of the fridge to make room for another six-pack, you had to put a new six-pack in
the fridge. (Not your beer; just another six-pack from the large stack of warm ones leaning
against the wall.) I still didn't drink. Until late in the party. I began to think that I could
handle just one. Three years of no cheating. Maybe I wasn't really an alcoholic at all.
I have it under control now. So I had a beer. That worked well, and tasted great.
It felt like coming home. So I had another, and then another. And then the party was
breaking up, and it was time to go home. I wanted to go get some more, and continue
the night, but the liquor store was already closed. So I went to bed.
The first thought in my mind when I woke up in the morning was, "Go get a six-pack."
I held out until noon, and then I went and got one. I told myself that I would just have
two a day, and stretch it out for three days. All six were gone by 4 in the afternoon.
The same thing happened the next day, and the next.
Then I become concerned about what was beginning to look like a habit. I stopped, and
held out for a couple of weeks. Then an acquaintance came over with a cooler in the
trunk of his car, full of ice and cold beer, and he pulled one out and held it up and asked,
"Want one?" I said yes, and that was that.
I didn't quit again for a long, long time.
Nine years later, a doctor said, "Quit drinking or die. Choose one."
By then, I was so sick that I believed him. After thinking it over for a month,
I chose to live.
The thing is, you don't have to drink for nine more years before you quit again.
(And I really don't advise it.)
You did the experiment, and you learned the answer to the question. Okay. Now you
can terminate the experiment and conclude that you won't be successful at moderate
drinking. In fact, I think you already have.
People like you and me definitely fall into the category of
"Should Not Drink At All."
It is kind of amazing, how we can stay completely sober for many years at a time, and then
get sucked into suicidally-intense drinking so rapidly, so easily. But all that we can do is
shrug our shoulders and say, "That's just the way that it is."
The thing is, once we learn how things really are, then we can choose to live. We can
choose to not die that way. It's easy for me to stay sober when I know beyond a shadow
of a doubt that more drinking will just be a quick descent into Hell.
No thanks. Been there. Done that. It ended up not being any fun.
It's time for something better now.
So have a good day and a good life.
== Orange
Last updated 31 July 2014. |
