Is Alcoholics Annonymous ethical?

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Q,

thank you for the post.

sorry for the tardy reply.

Originally Posted by Quahom1

I would say that for most, the courts use of the AA program is good. However for some (wherein there may be conflict with the individual's specific rights), it isn't good. Therein may lie the issue of ethics.

that is, precisely, the issue of ethics which we are discussing.

Or perhaps, the court hold a quite hope that the few that do not fit the God mold, might find "God", and further help their situation.

a perfect example.

Of course such wishes cannot be expressed openly by the court system, yet it seems the actions speak otherwise.

indeed, they cannot. their actions are what this thread is grounded upon, so to speak.

I cannot fault the judge who must uphold the law, but at least attempts to give the convicted a chance at a potential better life (and the same to those the convicted affect).

that is certainly debateable, though that is the subject for another thread, it would seem.

It is very difficult to deal with a "small group" of people who are different from the majority of society, yet who cause a great deal of trouble.

it isn't difficult if one makes the effort. moreover the characterization of "casues a great deal of trouble" is unwarranted and unfounded. Buddhists are not causing trouble to the American society regardless of how some Christian Protestant Fundamentalist Evangelicals are raving.

the American system of government is designed to protect the rights of *all* of its citizens, the minority and the majority... even when that may conflict with the will of the majority.

And to cater to their demands (rights), places extra burden on not only the courts but the rest of society, as well.

it is part and parcel of the American system of government. there is no extra burdern placed upon society in this regard, it is implicit in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. there is no foundation for discrimination regardless of ones views.

IMO it is a flawed system, but it is better than nothing at all. For most, that is hope, for a few it matters not (and they are truly lost in time). After awhile, they become forgotten or ignored.

i'm not really clear what you are saying here and i would rather understand before i respond directly. it seems that you are implying that we Buddhist and atheist types are "truly lost in time" and will be forgotten or ignored, is that correct?

metta,

~v

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

Namaste Q,

thank you for the post.

sorry for the tardy reply.



that is, precisely, the issue of ethics which we are discussing.



a perfect example.



indeed, they cannot. their actions are what this thread is grounded upon, so to speak.



that is certainly debateable, though that is the subject for another thread, it would seem.



it isn't difficult if one makes the effort. moreover the characterization of "casues a great deal of trouble" is unwarranted and unfounded. Buddhists are not causing trouble to the American society regardless of how some Christian Protestant Fundamentalist Evangelicals are raving.

the American system of government is designed to protect the rights of *all* of its citizens, the minority and the majority... even when that may conflict with the will of the majority.



it is part and parcel of the American system of government. there is no extra burdern placed upon society in this regard, it is implicit in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. there is no foundation for discrimination regardless of ones views.



i'm not really clear what you are saying here and i would rather understand before i respond directly. it seems that you are implying that we Buddhist and atheist types are "truly lost in time" and will be forgotten or ignored, is that correct?

metta,

~v

Not at all Vaj. I mean the ones who will not stop drinking and driving no matter what help or other is offered them. In fact I prefer to stay away from religion altogether on this issue.

Perhaps an AA for those other than inclined to follow a western type religion, should be created.

I will point out however that, Alcoholism (or more appropriately, dependence/addiction), is not an easy thing to beat by one's self.

Strength in numbers does seem to apply for such an issue.

I don't see why we can't create AA meetings for people of all walks of life (we seem to create organizations for everything else, with little problem).

v/r

Q

[EHarris]

"is it ethical of the judicial system to mandate that a Buddhist or atheist be forced to accept "God" before they are allowed to drive again?"
I still don't agree with the question. People mandated to AA are not forced to accept God before they are allowed to drive again. But let's assume that just by reading literature and not participating in the group that you presume know what it is about (which to me is like reading about ice cream, not tasting it, and assuming you "know" about it-please refer to your 1st sentance in the question). I think the bottom line is does the end justify the means? Clearly, yes, it's saving lives, innocent ones. Secondly, if one drives drunk, would you call that ethical or moral? I also think its a much more humane way to handle the drunk driving issue. Offering alcoholics a way out, instead of incarceration seems the best course of action to me. To be honest, I have learned nothing about religion in the meetings I have gone to. I have learned about humility, acceptance, and tolerance. I have learned how not to drink because of my lack of those things. For that, I am grateful One more thing. If a being drives drunk and kills someone (an innocent child perhaps), do they really deserve the priveledge to drive again? They can come to a few meetings, drink free coffee or tea, and find out that there are some people who found happiness, peace, joy, and serenity by sharing with their fellow man and helping others. That's what it's about-helping others with no agenda.
Peace,
E

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by EHarris

"is it ethical of the judicial system to mandate that a Buddhist or atheist be forced to accept "God" before they are allowed to drive again?"
I still don't agree with the question. People mandated to AA are not forced to accept God before they are allowed to drive again. But let's assume that just by reading literature and not participating in the group that you presume know what it is about (which to me is like reading about ice cream, not tasting it, and assuming you "know" about it-please refer to your 1st sentance in the question). I think the bottom line is does the end justify the means? Clearly, yes, it's saving lives, innocent ones. Secondly, if one drives drunk, would you call that ethical or moral? I also think its a much more humane way to handle the drunk driving issue. Offering alcoholics a way out, instead of incarceration seems the best course of action to me. To be honest, I have learned nothing about religion in the meetings I have gone to. I have learned about humility, acceptance, and tolerance. I have learned how not to drink because of my lack of those things. For that, I am grateful One more thing. If a being drives drunk and kills someone (an innocent child perhaps), do they really deserve the priveledge to drive again? They can come to a few meetings, drink free coffee or tea, and find out that there are some people who found happiness, peace, joy, and serenity by sharing with their fellow man and helping others. That's what it's about-helping others with no agenda.
Peace,
E

Actually you just presented a good point (or I contrived one from your post). When convicted of a felony or Grade 1 Misdemeanor. We LOSE certain rights. I'm not quite certain which rights we lose other than the right to vote, right to reasonable privacy, right to bear arms... Do we lose the right to freedom of expression? Do we lose the right to religious propriety?

v/r

Q

[EHarris]

I'm sure you don't lose those rights. I could look it up somewhere but I'm exhausted from wakeboarding. Another thing I want to say on the topic is that I am now hanging around a few Budhhists and going to meditation once a week where we also read "Radical Acceptance" and Thich Nhat Hanh so I fail to see V's point. God has definately not been forced upon me in this thing. Plus I am positive (or reasonably so) that if someone really had a problem being mandated to AA meetings, they could request another sentance and get thrown in prison for 6 months or so and never have a driver's license again....
Pease
E

[EHarris]

Quote:
IMO it is a flawed system, but it is better than nothing at all. For most, that is hope, for a few it matters not (and they are truly lost in time). After awhile, they become forgotten or ignored.

i'm not really clear what you are saying here and i would rather understand before i respond directly. it seems that you are implying that we Buddhist and atheist types are "truly lost in time" and will be forgotten or ignored, is that correct?

metta,

I think that person was talking about alcoholics.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by EHarris

Quote:
IMO it is a flawed system, but it is better than nothing at all. For most, that is hope, for a few it matters not (and they are truly lost in time). After awhile, they become forgotten or ignored.

i'm not really clear what you are saying here and i would rather understand before i respond directly. it seems that you are implying that we Buddhist and atheist types are "truly lost in time" and will be forgotten or ignored, is that correct?

metta,

I think that person was talking about alcoholics.

Actually I am talking about repeat offenders who refuse to change their habits, resulting in chronic offenses. It is my understanding that no one can call another an "alcoholic". That must be declared by the individual him/herself.

As far as the loss of and civil rights this is what I did find:

For felony convictions:

http://www.sentencingproject.org/pdfs/1046.pdf Loss of the right to vote.

http://www.alanellis.com/CM/Publicat...conviction.asp

the right to hold public office, serve on a jury, hold a federal job, or carry firearms.

However these "lost rights" are actually "disabled", and may be restored, but it takes a great deal of effort, time and court appearances to do so. It is not automatic.

As far a midemeanor convictions, the disabling of certain rights as noted above differ from state to state.

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Q,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Not at all Vaj. I mean the ones who will not stop drinking and driving no matter what help or other is offered them. In fact I prefer to stay away from religion altogether on this issue.

i'm glad that i asked for clarification, it is better to do so than to proceed with a misunderstanding, in my view.

i,too, would prefer to leave religion out of this equation which is, incidently, part and parcel of the ethical consideration.

Perhaps an AA for those other than inclined to follow a western type religion, should be created.

indeed, that would effectively eliminate the issue altogether.

I will point out however that, Alcoholism (or more appropriately, dependence/addiction), is not an easy thing to beat by one's self.

i would tend to agree. it is my view that many of our psychological issues are not easy to defeat without assistance.

Strength in numbers does seem to apply for such an issue.

whilst i would generally agree, it is still the individual being that does the work. others cannot do this for one.

I don't see why we can't create AA meetings for people of all walks of life (we seem to create organizations for everything else, with little problem).

v/r

Q

neither do i. it is, however, currently not the case. the issue isn't with AA, per se, rather the judicial mandate of completion of the 12 Step Program which explicitly endorses the idea of a loving God which is the crust of the biscut, so to speak.

metta,

~v

[Snoopy]

Hi Vajradhara,

The AA in the UK means Automobile Association to most people, but I believe there about 3300 AA groups in the UK. Research has suggested a 70% “success rate.” It appears most successful with regular, life members. (“once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic”) The 12 steps make belief in God explicit and so from that POV, I can see your concern Vajradhara.

In recent years there have been criticisms by ex-members that it is “cult-like”, with accusations of bullying and “brainwashing.” Others have said it replaces one dependency (alcohol) with another (AA).

In the UK at least there are obviously other approaches. I work at the local state run (NHS) hospital in a unit specifically for people with such problems. The people are there voluntarily (you can’t address a problem until you can see that you have one) and get support in terms of counselling, medication, information, fitness regime, good diet, practical support etc. Users of the service are generally very positive in their comments about how the unit is helping them. When I hear some of the life experiences that people have had, you can entirely understand why they tried to escape from their reality with drugs (at least I can).

More generally, the idea that alcoholism (or any addiction) is a disease is by no means universally accepted (see work by Peele for example).

Snoopy.

[17th Angel]

*gets flash backs of southpark joking about AA*

*contently chuckles*


"Get me a beer stan... staaaaan, daddy's very sick...."

[manephelien]

Seems to me that fervent believers are often addictive personalities. If they're not addicted to a more or less harmful substance (anything from coffee to heroin), they may be addicted to God instead. A fundamental flaw exists in such people: they can't survive without an external support, and if that's the case, God is likely to be less detrimental to their health than an addictive substance. Although religious fundamentalists can make their family life a living hell for those members who don't share the belief.

It would be interesting to see some statistics on the religious beliefs of people who have been convicted of DUI or other substance abuse offenses.

[amellcheney]

This past August I have been sober 20 years. AA helped me get sober. It was not so much the high power as some of the people there. I had a place to go or somebody to call if I felt the urge to drink. After awhile I just felt better.
Now do I think the courts should order someone to attend AA meetings. NO.

[bob x]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

hmm.. perhaps i should have phrased it differently. suppose said being, such as a Buddhist, does not have a belief in a "higher power" of any substantive nature?

The essential point is to stop letting your petty ego control. The message is entirely Buddhist, if you prefer to see it that way.

[Francis king]

thought I'd add my two cents worth...

for what it's worth...

my bro has just done 11 months in rehab, and the treatment he received was based on the AA's 12 steps...

now, while we know that today the 12 steps, and specifically the one which suggest you need to accept ur weak/incompetent and turn yourself over to a higher power can mean anything these days, we can traspose these principles to other faiths, or even no-faith, yet consider this...

My bro, plus all the other "people with the disease" are being given treatment, or rather, no treatment, based on the 12 steps yet... this facility is managed by xtians... and evangelical yankee xtians at that...

my bro has been there 11 months, watching the ppl he entered with leave, watching new ppl come and go, all of them re-housed by the xtians, etc...

the reason they have been moved on, re-housed, etc? becuase they decide to find God, wear rosary beads, chant prayers, speak in tongues...

most of them, being ex-junkies, are clever enough to realise what the game is and how to play it, and they do it well..

our kid, on the other hand, won't play the game... he is fundementally honest, and a little naive, and cannot say he's handing stuff over to God, as he doesn't believe in God...

some of the other junkies/plonkies/addicts have become born -again xtians, live with the church, etc... they go to revival meetings, sing in a tent for 12 hour shifts, work like dogs for no pay...

I'd hardly say this is ethical, myself...

now, AA meetings... I have never been, yet accroding to my bro, the main focus of these meetings is to instil fear into a person and make them scared to take another drink... they keep you trapped in illness behaviours, namely, thinking you are sick, and diseased, and only God can save you... you are supposed to get yourself a sponsor, a person who has been on the programme or done the steps, who will help you keep your nose clean, yet as far as I can see all this is a little unsavoury...

yes, it is good that some ppl who need it can find some support, but if you've not had a drink for 30 years yet you're still sitting in meetings moaning and revelling in 30 year old misery something is really wrong...

just my thoughts...

[Nick the Pilot]

Vaj,

Some time ago, I read a bit of the history of the beginning of the AA movement. In the beginning, the AA founders felt that spirituality was an important part of recovering from alchoholism -- something I strongly agree with. Unfortunately, the word 'spirituality' was replaced with the word "God,' and this has lead to the present-day AA organization, which is heavily slanted towards Christianity and monothesim.

If we merely replace 'God' with 'spirituality' (as the AA movement originally meant), or perhaps a phrase such as 'Buddha nature,' we have something that almost everyone can agree with.