The Orange Papers

[Neeranam]

QUOTE (Neeranam @ 2008-02-02 00:33:02)

QUOTE

However you call it Alcoholism is not a disease or a dis-ease and once you stop drinking you become an ex drinker not an alcoholic who hasn't had a drink

You obviously were not an alcoholic or understand the nature of the disease.

Classic AA labelling. Someone questions the doctrine, then deny the person is an alcoholic.

Who mentioned AA? I'm talking about alcoholism being a disease. I think you have AA on the brain Robittson. Any chance you get, on the subject of alcoholism, you bring up AA and your crusade against it. The definition of the term 'alcoholic' would make a good thread

[Chris Lawrence]

What are the advantages/disadvatages of attending a 12 step fellowship. Maybe a thread like this would give everyone the opportunity to contribute.

The fact is that not everyone is suited to one or the other types of treatment. The mear mention of the words AA gets some to deny the fact that they have a problem, although the wage was spent at the pub, bottle shop, tab and a loaf of bread and milk; whilst the family goes poor.

Its a cruel and uncomfortable situation for everyone. As I said before it was explained to me that the disease refers to dis-ease, not a disease like cancer. It is the feeling of uncomfortability in one's own skin. The fact that people want to labour and argue a point that this is a disease, to me is like pi##ing in the wind! It wasn't until I heard this concept that I could truly understand the way AA deals with this problem.

Anyway that is my 2 bob's worth.

[Neeranam]

As I said before it was explained to me that the disease refers to dis-ease, not a disease like cancer.

disease

1. Lack of ease; uneasiness; trouble; vexation; disquiet. "So all that night they passed in great disease." (Spenser) "To shield thee from diseases of the world." (Shak)

2. An alteration in the state of the body or of some of its organs, interrupting or disturbing the performance of the vital functions, and causing or threatening pain and weakness; malady; affection; illness; sickness; disorder; applied figuratively to the mind, to the moral character and habits, to institutions, the state, etc. "Diseases desperate grown, By desperate appliances are relieved." (Shak) "The instability, injustice, and confusion introduced into the public counsels have, in truth, been the mortal diseases under which popular governments have every where perished." (Madison) Disease germ. See Germ.

Synonym: Distemper, ailing, ailment, malady, disorder, sickness, illness, complaint, indisposition, affection. Disease, Disorder, Distemper, Malady, Affection.

from Online Medical Dictionary

I'd say alcoholism is a disease according to both definitions.

It is a pysiological/physical disease - hence most doctors in the West give alkies Naltrexone, an opoid blocking drug. Why on earth would they give this drug if they didn't think it were physical? This drug does stop the incredible physical cravings that alkies get( I know from experience)

QUOTE (garro @ 2008-02-03 13:17:32)

The addicts at Wat Thamkrabok make a satja vow not to use/drink again or for a set amount of time. If broken this vow can not be taken again. It is only possible to enter treatment at the temple once. It is believed that while the satja vow is kept good things will come into the addicts life and the oppostite is also true.

Maybe a spiritual/emotional/pschological disease too.

[garro]

The addicts at Wat Thamkrabok make a satja vow not to use/drink again or for a set amount of time. If broken this vow can not be taken again. It is only possible to enter treatment at the temple once. It is believed that while the satja vow is kept good things will come into the addicts life and the oppostite is also true.

How long do you have to study Buddhism to appreciate how serious this satja is?

Cheers

I speak to many ex-patients of Wat Thamkrabok who have been sober for decades. Some of these have no interest in Buddhism. I don't think you necessarily need to study Buddhism to take the satja seriously. The vow takes on its own importance and the fact that it can be only made once increases the significance.

In my view Wat Thamkrabok feels like a very spiritual community. In this I agree with AA. Recovery often needs to be a spiritual path. Many addicts are acting up because they have no other means of coping and are missing a spiritual aspect of their lives. The famous 'hole in the soul'. In my view many addicts have spiritual yearnings and if these yearnings are not met life will have little meaning.

The satja vow works. While you keep it good things come into your life. As somebody remains sober they will see that their lives are improving and their faith in the satja will grow. This has been the experience of all who I have spoken to who have followed the program. The satja vow replaces the need for a support group in many cases, although some ex-patients do belong to AA/NA also. Of course sometimes the shit will hit the fan, as nobody gets a free ride through life, but the vow supports people through life.

The difference in my view between and ex-Thamkrabok patient and a 'dry-drunk' is that the 'dry-drunk' has stagnated. They have giving up alcohol but all the reasons for why they drank/used are still there. They may stay sober for long periods but will resent this life without a tool (their favorite drug) which helped make life bearable. An ex- Thamkrabok patient has made a vow to stay sober in order to get on the correct path in life which will make them happy. The fact that they have made themselves open to change and development means that it does happen when their is a sincere effort made. I believe a similar process occurs when people in AA follow the 12 steps. There is also plenty of 'dry-drunks' in AA too. Others use other ways to find their way onto a path through life which has meaning.

It is my belief that the satja vow is the same as the higher power in AA. The ex-Wat Thamkrabok patient puts their faith in the fact that the vow will get them through life. They can hand-over to this higher power. When they face powerlessness in life, which most of us face everyday, they can pass this over to their satja/higher power. The belief that the fact that they are trying to do the right thing will mean that everything will work out the way it should.

So no, you don't need to have any Buddhist knowledge to appreciate the satja vow, but you do need to believe that if you do the right thing the right things will happen. I would say that most people believe this basic idea of kamma (karma), at least at some level.

I think the argument about whether or not alcoholism is a disease is pointless. It reminds me of the story which the Buddha told about the man who was struck by a poison arrow. He refused to have the arrow removed until they could tell him who had made the arrow and what ingredients they had used. By the time this information was obtained he was dead.

[robitusson]

QUOTE (Neeranam @ 2008-02-02 00:33:02)

QUOTE

However you call it Alcoholism is not a disease or a dis-ease and once you stop drinking you become an ex drinker not an alcoholic who hasn't had a drink

You obviously were not an alcoholic or understand the nature of the disease.

Classic AA labelling. Someone questions the doctrine, then deny the person is an alcoholic.

Who mentioned AA? I'm talking about alcoholism being a disease. I think you have AA on the brain Robittson. Any chance you get, on the subject of alcoholism, you bring up AA and your crusade against it. The definition of the term 'alcoholic' would make a good thread

I mentioned it Neeranam. I mentioned it because I immediately recognised its kneejerk, reactionary logic in what you said. Someone questions the doctrine (as happened here), then the typical AA response, which you so promptly came out with, is to say they're not an alcoholic or to claim they're ignorant.

Funny you should use the word 'crusade'. As an AA member it's deeply ironic you should choose that particular word.

You're right. The definition of the term alcoholic would make an excellent thread. I wonder would "someone who needs to believe an imaginary supernatural being can control their actions" be found in the medical dictionary. How do doctors research for that one?

I'd say alcoholism is a disease according to both definitions.

Good for you. You believe it to be a disease.

The truth is that it is highly contested. There are those who say it is emphatically not a disease, there are those who say it is. It's not agreed upon. There is no consensus of opinion. This is the fact of the matter.

Therefore it is disingenuious to claim that there is only one way of looking at the phenomenon of alcoholism, and it is spurious to claim someone who contests the disease theory is ignorant or somehow "not an alcoholic", as you have maintained here.

[Neeranam]

Therefore it is disingenuious to claim that there is only one way of looking at the phenomenon of alcoholism, and it is spurious to claim someone who contests the disease theory is ignorant or somehow "not an alcoholic", as you have maintained here.

Are you an alcoholic? Simple question - if you have a couple of drinks this afternoon, will you be able to stop, have a cup of tea then go out and socialise without wanting to drink more?

Funny you should use the word 'crusade'. As an AA member it's deeply ironic you should choose that particular word.

It's deeply ironic that you think I'm crusading for AA, I'm not. I chose that word carefully as it's exactly what your on. I'd love to know why you're on such a crusade. Something to do with you evangelical Buddhism, I believe, trying to prove the non-existence of any being more powerful than you.

I wonder would "someone who needs to believe an imaginary supernatural being can control their actions" be found in the medical dictionary

I certainly don't believe in an imaginary supernatural being - you've lost the plot mate

[robitusson]

It's deeply ironic that you think I'm crusading for AA, I'm not. I chose that word carefully as it's exactly what your on. I'd love to know why you're on such a crusade.

Having an opposing view to the AA party line is being on a "crusade". Why do differing opinions and information sources than AA threaten you so much?

Something to do with you evangelical Buddhism, I believe, trying to prove the non-existence of any being more powerful than you.

My 'evangelical Buddhism'? You've really got me pegged, don't you? It's very unfortunate that when people get involved with these pseudo-cults that they don't even recognise their own preaching and level of indoctrination. Let me guess, that's my 'disease' talking, is it? I must be a 'proper alcoholic'!

I certainly don't believe in an imaginary supernatural being - you've lost the plot mate

So how does AA work for you then, unless you hand over power to your own chosen imaginary being? How are the symptoms of the 'disease' lifted, if not by your personal, imaginary HP?

Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity.

Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood Him.

That's the 'science' behind it.

I have yet to lose the plot Neeranam. When I do I'll be sure and rush to whatever 12 step group has been set up for that particular 'disease', just like all the other ones.

Sorry to voice a different view. I know it niggles.

[garro]

Hi robitusson, I am curious as to why you would feel the need to question somebody's chosen method for reaching sobriety. If it works why bother to question it? There are no difinitive answers about anything. Does somebody else believing that they have a disease somehow harm you? I can't see how it could.

I am all in favor of any method which can get people sober or clean. If believing in the tooth-fairy works for somebody why question it?

I know the pain of addiction from not only a personal level but also from working as a nurse on a gastroenterology unit. Alcoholic-liver disease is not a pleasant way to die, and I believe that any method which helps people avoid this, or other unpleasant outcomes of alcohol abuse, can't be bad.

When people criticise another's chosen method there is always the risk of putting doubt in that person's mind. This is especially true when that person is in the early days of their recovery or going through a particularly hard time - when they are looking for an excuse to drink. So I personally see no value in 'The Orange Papers' or anything else which sets out to cast doubt on someone's recovery method.

[Neeranam]

Are you an alcoholic? Simple question - if you have a couple of drinks this afternoon, will you be able to stop, have a cup of tea then go out and socialise without wanting to drink more, and enjoy yourself?

[robitusson]

Hi robitusson, I am curious as to why you would feel the need to question somebody's chosen method for reaching sobriety. If it works why bother to question it? There are no difinitive answers about anything. Does somebody else believing that they have a disease somehow harm you? I can't see how it could.

If any one group claims to have a monoploy on the truth of what alcoholism means, then yes. I believe in having options for those who feel they have a drinking problem. I also believe up-to-date scientific, medical and psychological information should also have a central position in any understanding of problem drinking and addiction. If any single group prevents this from occuring then yes, they can be harmful. Excluding those problem drinkers who not identify with the doctrine of any one group and labelling them as false alcoholics is also harmful.

I am all in favor of any method which can get people sober or clean. If believing in the tooth-fairy works for somebody why question it?

I know the pain of addiction from not only a personal level but also from working as a nurse on a gastroenterology unit. Alcoholic-liver disease is not a pleasant way to die, and I believe that any method which helps people avoid this, or other unpleasant outcomes of alcohol abuse, can't be bad.

When people criticise another's chosen method there is always the risk of putting doubt in that person's mind. This is especially true when that person is in the early days of their recovery or going through a particularly hard time - when they are looking for an excuse to drink. So I personally see no value in 'The Orange Papers' or anything else which sets out to cast doubt on someone's recovery method.

This is another issue aside from what is discussed above ie. how helpful various methods of treating addiction and alcoholism are, which we would do well to question imo. The value being the knowledge of how effective a particular method of treatment may be, in relation to the claims it makes about its effectiveness. Going into the success rate of the recovery method criticised in the Orange Papers is a whole seperate issue though. The point is if any one group maintains to have a monopoly on effective treatment of problem drinking, at the expense of all the others, then of course it is harmful.

It is precisely because problem drinking and addiction cause so much harm that open and honest debate about this should be encouraged The true motivations and successfulness of all recovery methods should be freely discussed.

[sbk]

It is certainly acceptable to have a reasonable debate about this but it is not acceptable to resort to name-calling or otherwise inflammatory posts. Lets keep this civil please.

[garro]

I'm sorry Robitusson, but I still fail to see how other people's recovery method is anybody else's concern. I do not subscribe to the AA method myself, but I do respect it.

I am happy in my recovery and only hope that others can escape their addiction. I have no bone to pick how others choose to do this. My sober life is about fixing me and not fixing the world. The drunk me was too concerned with what other people were up to and I have no interest in continuing this into my sobriety.

I also have not interest in recovery rates as they are meaningless statistics. AA does not keep an attendance book and alcoholics/addicts are notorious liars. The only organisatons which tend to keep statistics are does which are looking for funding.

[sabaijai]

However you call it Alcoholism is not a disease or a dis-ease and once you stop drinking you become an ex drinker not an alcoholic who hasn't had a drink

You obviously were not an alcoholic or understand the nature of the disease.

The self-defining group, a common logical fallacy.

Today was my first time to seriously read portions of The Orange Papers. Some of it borders on conspiracy theory (and I don't see the necessity of exposing Bill Wilson's chronic philandering), and some of the prose is overly venomous, but much also consists of well-supported arguments based on reputable studies and statistics. Especially impressive is the chapter entitled 'The Effectiveness of the Twelve-Step Treatment'. Compare with The Big Book, which is largely anecdotal and contains very little medical science. Whether you think alcohol dependence is a disease or a behaviour, most will agree that it's mostly a medical problem and should be looked at within the context of medical science.

Taking that a step further, if you believe alcohol dependence is a disease then it's a medical problem. The contradiction in AA's disease model is that the 12-step treatment does not appear to be a medical approach in the least.

QUOTE (Neeranam @ 2008-02-02 00:33:02)

QUOTE

However you call it Alcoholism is not a disease or a dis-ease and once you stop drinking you become an ex drinker not an alcoholic who hasn't had a drink

You obviously were not an alcoholic or understand the nature of the disease.

Classic AA labelling. Someone questions the doctrine, then deny the person is an alcoholic.

Who mentioned AA? I'm talking about alcoholism being a disease. I think you have AA on the brain Robittson. Any chance you get, on the subject of alcoholism, you bring up AA and your crusade against it. The definition of the term 'alcoholic' would make a good thread

And that thread has been done to death

[sabaijai]

Hi robitusson, I am curious as to why you would feel the need to question somebody's chosen method for reaching sobriety. If it works why bother to question it? There are no difinitive answers about anything. Does somebody else believing that they have a disease somehow harm you? I can't see how it could.

If any one group claims to have a monoploy on the truth of what alcoholism means, then yes. I believe in having options for those who feel they have a drinking problem. I also believe up-to-date scientific, medical and psychological information should also have a central position in any understanding of problem drinking and addiction. If any single group prevents this from occuring then yes, they can be harmful. Excluding those problem drinkers who not identify with the doctrine of any one group and labelling them as false alcoholics is also harmful.

I am all in favor of any method which can get people sober or clean. If believing in the tooth-fairy works for somebody why question it?

I know the pain of addiction from not only a personal level but also from working as a nurse on a gastroenterology unit. Alcoholic-liver disease is not a pleasant way to die, and I believe that any method which helps people avoid this, or other unpleasant outcomes of alcohol abuse, can't be bad.

When people criticise another's chosen method there is always the risk of putting doubt in that person's mind. This is especially true when that person is in the early days of their recovery or going through a particularly hard time - when they are looking for an excuse to drink. So I personally see no value in 'The Orange Papers' or anything else which sets out to cast doubt on someone's recovery method.

This is another issue aside from what is discussed above ie. how helpful various methods of treating addiction and alcoholism are, which we would do well to question imo. The value being the knowledge of how effective a particular method of treatment may be, in relation to the claims it makes about its effectiveness. Going into the success rate of the recovery method criticised in the Orange Papers is a whole seperate issue though. The point is if any one group maintains to have a monopoly on effective treatment of problem drinking, at the expense of all the others, then of course it is harmful.

It is precisely because problem drinking and addiction cause so much harm that open and honest debate about this should be encouraged The true motivations and successfulness of all recovery methods should be freely discussed.

Well argued. If alcohol abuse affects all of society - and I think most people will agree that it does - then the propagation of one theory of treatment over another becomes a social as well as a personal issue.

[Neeranam]

Taking that a step further, if you believe alcohol dependence is a disease than it's entirely a medical problem. The contradiction in AA's disease model is that the 12-step treatment does not appear to be a medical approach in the least.

I suggest you read the AA Big Book before passing judgement.

I'm not sure but think that AA believe alcoholism to be a spiritual, mental and physical disease.

Their conception of alcoholism at the time was that it was a three part illness, consisting of the mental, physical and spiritual components.

They described the mental part of the disease of alcoholism as having to do with the obsession. Is it about the distorted thinking that makes the need to drink the most important aspect of our life.

The physical part of the disease involves the idea of compulsion. That is the phenomenon of continuing to drink after taking that first drink is the inability to control or set and keep limits on our drinking. The original Alcoholics Anonymous concept was that of the physical allergy. The dictionary describes an allergy as an unusual reaction to a common substance. The common substance was alcohol; the unusual reaction was the compulsion to drink more and the mental obsession with it.

This is a spiritual disease has to do we the erosion of our values. Those concepts would use to hold near in dear such as honesty pride and integrity, tend to lose their significance as are addiction progresses. Another spiritual aspect of the disease is the propensity to become isolated and disconnected from our family, are higher power, and perhaps most importantly ourselves.

Robittson, why won't you answer my question? Can you have a drink and then stop?

[sabaijai]

I suggest you read the AA Big Book before passing judgement.

I have. It's full of sweeping statements without footnotes or medical citations, such as:

The alcoholic at certain times has no effective mental defense against the first drink. Except in a few rare cases, neither he nor any other human being can provide such a defense. His defense must come from a Higher Power.

[from 'More About Alcoholism', the only chapter with a quasi-medical orientation]

Five quotes from doctors are supplied in the back matter. I believe all five doctors are dead; the most quoted, Dr Wm Silkworth, Silkworth died 57 years ago. None of the doctor's quotes are medical data per se. Examples:

Dr. Foster Kennedy, neurologist: “This organization of Alcoholics Anonymous calls on two of the greatest reservoirs of power known to man, religion and that instinct for association with one’s fellows . . . the ‘herd instinct.’ I think our profession must take appreciative cognizance of this great therapeutic weapon. If we do not do so, we shall stand convicted of emotional sterility and of having lost the faith that moves mountains, without which medicine can do little.”

Dr. W. W. Bauer, broadcasting under the auspices of The American Medical Association in 1946, over the NBC network, said, in part: “Alcoholics Anonymous ... know that they must never drink. They help others with similar problems . . . In this atmosphere the alcoholic often overcomes his excessive concentration upon himself. Learning to depend upon a higher power and absorb himself in his work with other alcoholics, he remains sober day by day.”

By contrast The Orange Papers provides hundreds of contemporary medical citations.

[Neeranam]

Are you an alcoholic? Simple question - if you have a couple of drinks this afternoon, will you be able to stop, have a cup of tea then go out and socialise without wanting to drink more, and enjoy yourself?

Robittson, why won't you answer my question? Can you have a drink and then stop?

Please answer the question - I want to know if you can drink then stop, why not drink?

If you can't - I want to know what you think makes you want crave.

[Sheryl]

OK gang, enough of this. The dialogue has been counter-productive for quite some time now and there has already been one moderator warning.

Garro put it best: why question someone's chosen path to sobriety? It can only be harmful. If it worked for them, it worked. Period. If someone else doesn't want to take that path, their choice and good luck to them in whatever approach they do take.

let's remember what the purpose of this sub-forum is: to provide moral support and helpful information/sharing of experiences for persons who have a problem with alcohol.

Only helpful and supportive posts will be tolerated.

This thread is now closed.