General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Alcoholics Anonymous has a terrible success rate, addiction expert finds [View all]Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)That an alcoholic is somehow going to be able to magically transform into a moderate drinker. Barring some massive scientifc breakthrough on the physiology of the process, once someone has gone down the pathway to physiological addiction to alcohol, or if they have what I believe is the genetic predisposition to the point where they were drinking like that from the get-go- the ONLY option is total abstinence. Absolutely. And letting go of that hope or delusion of one day "being able to" drink... That is a rubicon which must be crossed for the recovery process, to be sure.
Trimpey, of RR, promotes the idea of reconfiguring the brain and attitudes to "be done with it"- however RR absolutely says total abstinence is the requirement and the goal. I find trimpey a bit too dogmatic in the opposite direction from AA. i dont think there is any one size fits all solution. But I also do not believe that ALL alcoholics require lifelong attendance at X number of meetings a week to remain sober. Some do, some don't.
As for the last point, what difference does it make? Take the hypothetical case of the Atheist who simply cannot contort the word "God" into something palatable, who can't stand the meetings, whose maximum time without a drink in a 12 step program is 2 weeks, and who gets and remains sober via other secular fellowship groups and/or means like SMART, and remains "happy, joyous and free" staying well and far away from 12 step programs?
Under what sort of yardstick would it have been "better" for that person to have forced themselves to "work" a program that wasnt doing it for them?