Passages Malibu claims cure for Alcoholism. (depressed, pain, problems, stop)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is my long, tangential reply to several previous posts. Sorry, I'm tired, and promise to do better next time: You can check out the "Addictions Cure" book at most libraries. I am not an addict, but I treat addicts I read it years ago. From what I recall, it seems the "cure" was pretty much a holistic approach to the treatment of addiction. I believe said "cure" consists of a program that is group-focused and fairly similar to the 12 steps, individual psychotherapy, proper diet, use of supplements (I remember the supplements the most- I kept waiting for some infomercial-guy voice to start saying: "Try 'Passages' to Abstinence: Yummy In Your Sober Tummy Gummy Vites -the only supplements that aren't a drug, and therefore allowed at our facilities!": "only 4 pmts of $49.99" or something like that...); plus exercise, meditation, massage (can anyone say chiropractor?), and ginger ale and red jolly rancher enemas (just kidding about that one), etc. I can't say it's a bad idea overall; I think getting healthy and making positive changes is a good idea for anyone, and since the mind and body are connected, why not? But most people know its hard enough to change just one bad habit- I cant imagine having to change all of one's vices at once. I could never give up sugar and caffeine in even the same year; but its because I dont want to or need to, and thats as close as I can really come to personally understanding. I think rehab facilities that are non-smoking are totally cruel for this reason, though I think it's a great thought. I have seen people in and out of rehab 15 times in 3 years; known some who relapse over and over again despite losing everything they love or care about, all of their dreams and potential; had a friend (an MD who you'd think would know to avoid this) die after a stint of sobriety from 3 lines of cocaine; and other awful stuff. On the other hand, my dad has been sober 25 years and still goes to AA at least 5x a week; I've met some with years of sobriety who did it with sheer willpower. Perhaps the worst is the alcoholic who quits and gets psychologically worse. I once had a boss like this. He was the director of Chemical Dependency Services for an entire hospital; he was worse than the worst addict when it came to the manipulative, entitled, and unpredictable, y'all-best-be-walking-on-eggshells behavior that one would perhaps expect from someone actively using; but he was over 15 years clean and attending some program (I'm not sure which). My point is that it's less about the program and more about the person and their desire to heal- to do the grueling, heart-scathing, soul-crushing work that is required to figure out what led you here in the first place, and especially after that. Happy people don't choose to try drugs; at least not after once or twice, and happy people don't get drunk repeatedly. At least I've never met one. Overall, I think the 12 steps are awesome. They may have been put together in the 30s, but they cover all the bases. And not just for addiction. I personally think that the 12 steps should be required, in perhaps some modified form, by all high school students. There are some basic, practical applications that allow for the self-discovery and "spiritual" growth that so many people are lacking. And by spiritual I do not mean religious, in fact, developmentally, at that age, perhaps they should be required to study a spiritual "way" opposite of what they've been taught thus far. Ah, if I ruled the world. But I digress. Really, I don't care if you want to use your Teddy bear as your higher power, that's not the point, but one should get outside of oneself and see the greater good- just to go from that narcissistic center-of-the-universe position one has in childhood and take their rightful place in the grand scheme of the entire universe. Work at a soup kitchen or something...but so many people lack the insight to stop the self destruction involved in addiction- that's where I think the 12 steps are helpful. I admit I know very little about other programs, as I live in a small town and the options are limited, but most people need help to quit. That's the main thing. I will address the "moderation" issue in a sec. I do want to bring this up about the disease concept, as it is something I personally debate in my own head: when we look at an addicts brain in a SPECT scan, we can see the response to their drug of choice when we even briefly expose them to it (ie, by smell)...but as time goes on, this response weakens (I'm so sorry that I can't cite this study properly, its in my office buried somewhere Im sure-I'll look for it...it's in some journal from around 2009...maybe neurology?) in fact, it weakens to the point, that after about 20 years or so of sobriety, the response to the stimulus is pretty much equal to that of a person with no history of addiction. This would indicate that mere abstinence causes the brain to repair itself and be, therefore, "cured"...the issue then becomes the psychological component of that person having a drink (or using their drug of choice) and being unable to maintain controlled use. Addiction is always compared to diabetes when discussing the disease model, but diabetes can also be "cured" with exercise and diet. So can hypertension and other diseases. So, I start to wonder if it's just semantics, or if it's that addiction, like diabetes, is able to be "managed" but the disease itself always remains if one were to stop the activities creating this control. If I lose weight and start exercising, and also LEARN how to eat properly and be more active- I can technically become disease free without being 'on a diet' and scheduled exercise; and I can still have cake and soda in moderation; if i start to consume junk food excessively it is a matter of habit, behavior and even things like choice, stress, and lifestyle. Where is the line with addiction and why? Why is it an insult to say that the addict chose to relapse, to engage in an unsavory lifestyle, etc. I am fully aware of the medical process of addiction just as I am aware or how diabetes works, and I know I am over-simplifying both in many ways. I am just asking if, by calling addiction a disease, we unwittingly do more harm than good by reducing the amount of responsibility the addict must take for his or her addiction? I guess that's ultimately what bugs me about calling it a disease. There's such a HUGE behavioral component to it. There is a huge choice component, and you cant drink in moderation if youve crossed that line into addiction even once before, and here's why: I've never ever met, nor have I ever even heard of an addict learning to use in moderation for any sustained period of time. (many have tried, some can even go a couple of years, but it always gets ugly) It just doesn't work. That's why it's an addiction: you didn't CHOOSE to go overboard to a point you couldn't stop in the first place, obviously it was an unconscious or subconscious issue, or a brain malfunction (dont get offended: a problem with your dopamine receptors having an input/output issue, not that you're stupid or weak) so saying that "this time" will be different is completely illogical. Unless, that is, you initially said to yourself: "I'm going to start drinking/using more and more until I get to the point that it's more important than anything else and suffer enormous consequences over and over again and not stop until I am either forced to or until something so significantly horrible and painful happens to me that I can no longer bear that pain any longer" otherwise no one would ever drink or use period- knowing that was even a possibility.
I forgot to add somewhere in that rambling mess that this is why a pill will never provide a "cure" for addiction, just as a pill cannot cure the other diseases of the mind. When you combine a biological process with one that is psychological, you cannot simply change the biology and expect complete symptom dissipation forever. There are so many factors involved in relapse: thought, feelings, behaviors, unconscious motivations, conditioned responses, etc, and though a change in one may/can affect change in another, working solely on the biological functions fails to address any of these. No pill has ever changed behavior in the long term, aside from maybe behaviors associated with delusional or floridly psychotic thought, and even then, there hasn't been a cure- we are still talking about maintenance of symptoms that require lifelong treatment. We can't even cure depression yet, despite the fact that it's one of the most common "diseases" of our times- yet there are some 15-20 "different" medications that have been introduced just since the debut of Prozac in the late 80's; all which pretty much do the same thing. Treatment to "cure" depression still requires good old-fashioned talk-therapy, which requires the work of the person being treated, not the psychiatrist/psychologist so much. Medication and therapy can cure depression, but most people dont want to do the work. Meds like Campral are fine, but they are for short term use- they just cut out the worst cravings in the initial stages of alcohol withdrawal. It's not much different than naltrexone, or whatever brand they're selling it under- naltrexone has been used for years, but when the psychological urges are strong enough, one doesn't care if the "high" isn't achieved, it's the other factors the addict goes after (naltrexone is commonly used in opioid addiction, it works by preventing or counteracting the high one would generally get from using an opioid drug, it was soon found that the effects went a little deeper and actually helped with actual cravings in general, and subsequently was generalized for use with other substances) I don't know if I made my point or not, but I wouldn't hold your breath for a pill to cure addiction.
Maybe I might read this post. Let me do something first;
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rumplesolsken
This is my long, tangential reply to several previous posts.
Sorry, I'm tired, and promise to do better next time: You can check out the "Addictions Cure" book at most libraries.
I am not an addict, but I treat addicts I read it years ago. From what I recall, it seems the "cure" was pretty much a holistic approach to the treatment of addiction. I believe said "cure" consists of a program that is group-focused and fairly similar to the 12 steps, individual psychotherapy, proper diet, use of supplements (I remember the supplements the most- I kept waiting for some infomercial-guy voice to start saying: "Try 'Passages' to Abstinence: Yummy In Your Sober Tummy Gummy Vites -the only supplements that aren't a drug, and therefore allowed at our facilities!": "only 4 pmts of $49.99" or something like that...); plus exercise, meditation, massage (can anyone say chiropractor?), and ginger ale and red jolly rancher enemas (just kidding about that one), etc.
I can't say it's a bad idea overall; I think getting healthy and making positive changes is a good idea for anyone, and since the mind and body are connected, why not?
But most people know its hard enough to change just one bad habit- I cant imagine having to change all of one's vices at once. I could never give up sugar and caffeine in even the same year; but its because I dont want to or need to, and thats as close as I can really come to personally understanding.
I think rehab facilities that are non-smoking are totally cruel for this reason, though I think it's a great thought. I have seen people in and out of rehab 15 times in 3 years; known some who relapse over and over again despite losing everything they love or care about, all of their dreams and potential; had a friend (an MD who you'd think would know to avoid this) die after a stint of sobriety from 3 lines of cocaine; and other awful stuff.
On the other hand, my dad has been sober 25 years and still goes to AA at least 5x a week; I've met some with years of sobriety who did it with sheer willpower. Perhaps the worst is the alcoholic who quits and gets psychologically worse. I once had a boss like this. He was the director of Chemical Dependency Services for an entire hospital; he was worse than the worst addict when it came to the manipulative, entitled, and unpredictable, y'all-best-be-walking-on-eggshells behavior that one would perhaps expect from someone actively using; but he was over 15 years clean and attending some program (I'm not sure which).
My point is that it's less about the program and more about the person and their desire to heal- to do the grueling, heart-scathing, soul-crushing work that is required to figure out what led you here in the first place, and especially after that.
Happy people don't choose to try drugs; at least not after once or twice, and happy people don't get drunk repeatedly. At least I've never met one.
Overall, I think the 12 steps are awesome. They may have been put together in the 30s, but they cover all the bases. And not just for addiction. I personally think that the 12 steps should be required, in perhaps some modified form, by all high school students. There are some basic, practical applications that allow for the self-discovery and "spiritual" growth that so many people are lacking. And by spiritual I do not mean religious, in fact, developmentally, at that age, perhaps they should be required to study a spiritual "way" opposite of what they've been taught thus far. Ah, if I ruled the world.
But I digress. Really, I don't care if you want to use your Teddy bear as your higher power, that's not the point, but one should get outside of oneself and see the greater good- just to go from that narcissistic center-of-the-universe position one has in childhood and take their rightful place in the grand scheme of the entire universe. Work at a soup kitchen or something...but so many people lack the insight to stop the self destruction involved in addiction- that's where I think the 12 steps are helpful.
I admit I know very little about other programs, as I live in a small town and the options are limited, but most people need help to quit. That's the main thing.
I will address the "moderation" issue in a sec. I do want to bring this up about the disease concept, as it is something I personally debate in my own head: when we look at an addicts brain in a SPECT scan, we can see the response to their drug of choice when we even briefly expose them to it (ie, by smell)...but as time goes on, this response weakens (I'm so sorry that I can't cite this study properly, its in my office buried somewhere Im sure-I'll look for it...it's in some journal from around 2009...maybe neurology?) in fact, it weakens to the point, that after about 20 years or so of sobriety, the response to the stimulus is pretty much equal to that of a person with no history of addiction. This would indicate that mere abstinence causes the brain to repair itself and be, therefore, "cured"...the issue then becomes the psychological component of that person having a drink (or using their drug of choice) and being unable to maintain controlled use.
Addiction is always compared to diabetes when discussing the disease model, but diabetes can also be "cured" with exercise and diet. So can hypertension and other diseases. So, I start to wonder if it's just semantics, or if it's that addiction, like diabetes, is able to be "managed" but the disease itself always remains if one were to stop the activities creating this control. If I lose weight and start exercising, and also LEARN how to eat properly and be more active- I can technically become disease free without being 'on a diet' and scheduled exercise; and I can still have cake and soda in moderation; if i start to consume junk food excessively it is a matter of habit, behavior and even things like choice, stress, and lifestyle.
Where is the line with addiction and why? Why is it an insult to say that the addict chose to relapse, to engage in an unsavory lifestyle, etc. I am fully aware of the medical process of addiction just as I am aware or how diabetes works, and I know I am over-simplifying both in many ways. I am just asking if, by calling addiction a disease, we unwittingly do more harm than good by reducing the amount of responsibility the addict must take for his or her addiction? I guess that's ultimately what bugs me about calling it a disease. There's such a HUGE behavioral component to it. There is a huge choice component, and you cant drink in moderation if youve crossed that line into addiction even once before, and here's why: I've never ever met, nor have I ever even heard of an addict learning to use in moderation for any sustained period of time. (many have tried, some can even go a couple of years, but it always gets ugly) It just doesn't work.
That's why it's an addiction: you didn't CHOOSE to go overboard to a point you couldn't stop in the first place, obviously it was an unconscious or subconscious issue, or a brain malfunction (dont get offended: a problem with your dopamine receptors having an input/output issue, not that you're stupid or weak) so saying that "this time" will be different is completely illogical. Unless, that is, you initially said to yourself: "I'm going to start drinking/using more and more until I get to the point that it's more important than anything else and suffer enormous consequences over and over again and not stop until I am either forced to or until something so significantly horrible and painful happens to me that I can no longer bear that pain any longer" otherwise no one would ever drink or use period- knowing that was even a possibility.
I forgot to add somewhere in that rambling mess that this is why a pill will never provide a "cure" for addiction, just as a pill cannot cure the other diseases of the mind. When you combine a biological process with one that is psychological, you cannot simply change the biology and expect complete symptom dissipation forever.
There are so many factors involved in relapse: thought, feelings, behaviors, unconscious motivations, conditioned responses, etc, and though a change in one may/can affect change in another, working solely on the biological functions fails to address any of these. No pill has ever changed behavior in the long term, aside from maybe behaviors associated with delusional or floridly psychotic thought, and even then, there hasn't been a cure- we are still talking about maintenance of symptoms that require lifelong treatment. We can't even cure depression yet, despite the fact that it's one of the most common "diseases" of our times- yet there are some 15-20 "different" medications that have been introduced just since the debut of Prozac in the late 80's; all which pretty much do the same thing.
Treatment to "cure" depression still requires good old-fashioned talk-therapy, which requires the work of the person being treated, not the psychiatrist/psychologist so much. Medication and therapy can cure depression, but most people dont want to do the work. Meds like Campral are fine, but they are for short term use- they just cut out the worst cravings in the initial stages of alcohol withdrawal. It's not much different than naltrexone, or whatever brand they're selling it under- naltrexone has been used for years, but when the psychological urges are strong enough, one doesn't care if the "high" isn't achieved, it's the other factors the addict goes after (naltrexone is commonly used in opioid addiction, it works by preventing or counteracting the high one would generally get from using an opioid drug, it was soon found that the effects went a little deeper and actually helped with actual cravings in general, and subsequently was generalized for use with other substances)
I don't know if I made my point or not, but I wouldn't hold your breath for a pill to cure addiction.
Rump! Welcome to City-Data.
I like your post. You are well read and you touched on all the good stuff.
With respect to the "mental obsession" as we call it, we describe it as insanity. One must be insane to know of the certain consequences of even "a few days or a week ago", yet the ideas wins out that we can control it this time. We start back on that first drink for some usually trivial reason... and next thing we know, we're at that place of "pitiful, incomprehensible demoralization".
I had quit drinking quite a few times from about 1986 to about 1993, without A.A. I knew A.A. was there, I had my A.A. book tucked away in a drawer... but I didn't need it. I was too young. I was immortal. But from time to time, the heat came my way and I had to quit... to go on the wagon. I'd start back up by "accidently" mistaking my wife's Captain Morgan and coke for my pepsi. But once I got a sip... I was like, "Oopsie! Can I have this one?" And for me, the first one always turned into the second one.
On another occasion, I went back to drinking because I'd never drank in Texas before. On another occasion, my boss offered me over to his house for beer and pizza. On another occasion, I was dating a gal and I was kind of nervous, so I had a beer. I blacked out that night playing a game of Passout with she and her friends. I woke up on her couch the next morning. I'd pissed my pants. I went into her bedroom where she was sleeping... to apologize... and to face my embarassment from the night before. She didn't seem to know. I told her I was sorry for my behavior the night before. She said, "Oh, you were fine. Can you come over again tonight?" So, I went ahead and married her.
I second that motion. Welcome Rump and thanx for raising the bar of this thread several notches. The "Mental Obsession" mentioned by McG and Bill Wilson could also be labled the short definition of addiction. Then Dr. Silkworth talks about the "Phenomena of Craving" that occurs after the first drink. What he is trying to demonstrate is the alcoholic is powerless before taking the first drink because the mental obsession sets him up to take it. After the first drink the alcoholic is powerless because the craving sets in. I always wondered why they would say "Its the first drink that gets you drunk." My sponsor put it in simple terms for me when he said "When you get run over by a train, its not the caboose that kills you."
Bottom line, Wilson is trying to get readers to understand that "most chronic alcoholics are doomed" unless they get help. His plan of recovery appears to be based on Jungian models which refer to recovery coming from outside rather than within as per Freud. Its like Rump said, it requires hard work and willpower has to be applied towards using the tools of recovery programs, ie. The 12 Steps.
I don't believe that addiction and alcoholism is a disease. I also believe 12-step programs hurt far more than they help.
If someone is in one of these programs and it is working for them, good. However, I have a different opinion.
Telling folks that if they stop attending meetings they will die or go to jail is setting them up for failure while leading them into reliance on the "program." Telling them they have a disease allows them to have an excuse for not quitting. They no longer have to take responsibility for their lives. And sorry but I think that hanging around with other drunks and addicts is not the best action. Granted, some of those people have been clean and sober for awhile but the majority of the people in those "rooms" move in and out through the revolving doorway, often taking others with them.
People quit when they want to, if they want to. There is no magic bullet, "cure," program, rehab, person or meeting. But recovery has turned into a big business and that is why the myth is perpetuated.
When you are done, you stop.
Get some self-esteem, know that you deserve better and upgrade your friends and your life. Move on.
Stanton Peele is making money off of recovery, so there ya go.
If you can get sober without A.A., then great. If you can stay sober on will power, do it.
But A.A. does not claim to be a disease and is all about responsibility.
You're reading too much Agent Orange and you belong to an A.A. hate group. Good luck with that.
Stanton Peele endorsed Audrey Kishline's Moderation Management program until she got drunk and killed a man and his 14 year old daughter.
But if you think A.A. is bad, stay away and just don't drink, no matter what.
I can go to a couple of blogs that reference the claims against 12 Step that you have made here.
They stand more against something than for something and It's obvious that they are a hate group.
To tell someone like me that I just quit.when I want to is dangerous and insulting to people like me.
When I realized that I cannot not drink, was I able to finally stay sober.
For some of us alcoholics, we seem to be beyond human aid and we need a spiritual solution. Now, there are some secular organizations who despise such an approach, have an agenda, and look to tear it down.
How could A.A. embrace the disease concept when the whole program is based on, "Therefore, the main problem of the alcoholic centers in the mind, rather than in the body."
So based on that, they recommend entire abstinence, so the physical aspects are NOT operative.
The spiritual approach is this; being in fit spiritual condition is merely a state of being in tune with the people about you.
So how could that be a program that condones a lack of responsibility?
You either went to bad A.A. meetings or got inducted by a hate group. Which one is the case for you?
I've haven't read any blogs about alcoholism or even knew that hate groups against 12-step groups existed. I never mentioned spirituality. So maybe you are "talking" to someone else?
If you are doing well, McGowdog, then continue doing what works for you. You are coming off a bit aggressive, though.
In any event, best of luck to you, and I mean that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
