Archive for the ‘Addictions’ Category


Alcoholics Anonymous: Cult or Cure? front cover

by Chaz Bufe, author of Alcoholics Anonymous: Cult or Cure?

Over the years, I’ve written a lot about AA, mostly about the negative things that are lost in the avalanche of pro-AA testimonials.

Let’s take as a given that AA’s own statistics (AA’s 1989 triennial survey) are correct: 5% of those who walk through the door are still there (and probably sober) a year later. That’s about the rate of spontaneous remission.

My very strong suspicion is that if you’d take away the million-plus people coerced into AA attendance every year in the U.S. (mostly via DUI sentencing and employee assistance programs), the percentage who recover with the help of AA would be a lot higher — that is, if you’d only count those who voluntarily come to AA for help, the recovery rate would probably be twice, maybe three times the rate indicated in AA’s summary report on the 1989 AA triennial survey. (I have to stress here that this is only my own entirely scientifically unsupported estimate, though I suspect that my friends and family who have been in AA for decades would tend to agree.)

Why would this be? Two reasons come to mind: 1) once someone has decided to change, almost any helping hand will increase their chances of recovery; 2) there’s evidence that AA works especially well for religious people, for whom AA’s religiosity isn’t a problem, and is likely an aid.

This brings up the first way that AA could be of more help to alcohol abusers and the alcohol dependent: AA should stop aiding and abetting the coercion of alcohol abusers into AA attendance. This could be easily done by having meeting secretaries stop signing attendance slips. AA’s annual general service conference could easily declare such a policy.

The second way AA could be of more help is if it (okay, the true believers at most AA meetings) would admit that there are other routes to recovery. There’s good evidence that cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) approaches are the most effective treatment option, and CBT self-help is the foundation of the second-most common alcohol self-help group, SMART Recovery.

That leads to the third way AA could be of more help: AA has an official “take it or leave it” approach (not that this reflects real-world AA), which means that AA could help more people by referring them to SMART Recovery, Lifering, Moderation Management (and other harm-reduction groups), Secular Organizations for Sobriety, Women for Sobriety, and other non-religious recovery groups. These groups can and will help many of those repelled by the rigidity and religiosity of AA.

A fourth way AA (again, the true believers at AA meetings) could be of real help is if AA would stop repeating unscientific, destructive dogma.

Go to almost any AA meeting and you’ll hear that without AA “alcoholics” will inevitably descend into the hell of “jails, institutions, or death.” Abundant scientific research indicates that this simply is not so: most alcohol-dependent persons (not just alcohol abusers) either improve significantly or quit entirely without participation in AA or any other type of treatment program.

So, if AA (the hardcore members) would simply stop repeating the “jails, institutions, or death” mantra, it would help huge numbers of people to take the first step to taking responsibility for their own behavior and recovery (or at least improvement). AA should admit that it is possible to recover independently or simply reduce self-harm, and that doing so is possible and important.

A fifth and very significant way AA could help alcohol abusers is if it (again, the hardcore fanatics at almost every meeting) would stop insisting that “alcoholics” inevitably lose control after a single drink (“one drink, one drunk”). There’s good scientific evidence that this is a self-fulfilling prophecy, and that those having no exposure to AA are significantly less likely to binge than those exposed to AA.

Of course, when those with alcohol problems drink it’s at least to some extent Russian roulette. So, it makes sense not to drink. But pretending that even a single drink inevitably leads to a bender is a horrible, destructive, self-fulfilling prophecy.

If AA (oookay, once again the hardcore believers) would stop insisting on all this pernicious nonsense and would instead present AA honestly as a religiously based recovery program that works for some people, AA would be a real help to people with alcohol problems.

As is, AA does more harm than good. I hope AA changes so that it helps more people, but I’m not optimistic.

 

 


Illustration from American Heretic's Dictionary

DRUG ADDICTION, n. A popular method of dealing with day-to-day living in the United States.

* * *

— from The American Heretic’s Dictionary (revised & expanded), the 21st-century successor to Ambrose Bierce’s Devil’s Dictionary. (The link goes to 50 sample definitions and illustrations.)

American Heretic's Dictionary revised and expanded by Chaz Bufe, front cover


Three weeks ago, I started to emerge from the ooze of addiction to prescription drugs. I’ve had chronic insomnia for two decades, and for almost that entire time have been taking more and more prescription Ambien (zolpidem). I tried to quit it a few times, but invariably I’d go 48+ hours without sleep, would say “fuck it, I can’t stand it,” and was back on it.

The symptoms were ever worse. Toward the end, the last two or three years, I was having severe memory and cognition problems, was irritable as hell, and had ever-worsening depression and fatigue. I thought of all this as normal. Couldn’t remember damn near anything else. I even wrote embarrassing blog posts that I  deleted the next morning, without ever having remembered posting them — got up, read ’em, and went, “Did I post that? What the fuck was I thinking?” — before deleting them; you might have read a few.

I was like the frog in the pot. I just didn’t notice how awful things were getting until about three weeks ago, when I finally thought, “Well, I’ll probably die within the next couple of years; that’s fine. I feel so miserable it’d be a relief. Time to end it.”

That was the wake-up call. The thought that death might be welcome. The total self-involvement, self-indulgence. I was disgusted with myself.

I’ve always had severe judgments against those who commit suicide unless they were in chronic pain (the ultimate “fuck you” message to survivors, the ultimate “I don’t give a shit about how you feel, it’s all about me” message to those who love them — yes, I’ve experienced that) and realized I might do the same self-indulgent, self-destructive bullshit to hurt those who loved me.

No thanks. I might be an asshole, but I’m not that kind of asshole.

So, I went to the doc, got a prescription for another sleep med I’ve used only sparingly the last few weeks, and am doing everything I can to get away from sleep meds entirely.

It’s working. A lot of nights I don’t use anything except aspirin and medical pot for pain, even though I only sleep three or four hours.

It’s an improvement. A big improvement.

Goodbye Ambien, hello life. (Iggy Pop “Trainspotting” music — “Lust for Life” — here).

I feel like I’m emerging from a shroud, coming up from the bottom of a deep pool.

If you’re taking Ambien because of chronic insomnia, there are better alternatives to it, and it might kill you if you don’t get off it. It almost killed me.


We published about 250 posts in 2017, and consider the following the 50 best. We’ve divided them into categories to make navigating easier; as with our past “best of” lists, the Humor, Politics, Religion, Music, and Science Fiction categories account for most of the posts. (Because several of the posts fit into more than one category, they appear in more than one place.) We hope you enjoy them.

Humor

Politics

Religion

Music

Economics

Civil Liberties

Science

Interviews

Addictions

Anarchism

Science Fiction


Harvey Weinstein and Kevin Spacey are here in Arizona, up in Wickenburg at The Meadows, a very expensive ($58,000 for 45 days) 12-step treatment program.

This is ridiculous on more than one count, most importantly that Spacey and Weinstein are not afflicted with “sex addiction.” Rather, they’ afflicted with power-over-others “addiction,” and the abusive behavior that results from it. Give people power over others, and it’s a safe bet that a great many of them will abuse it.

Second, “sex addiction” is not a recognized disorder in the standard handbook on mental disorders, the American Psychological Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (5th ed.). It’s a pop culture term dating from the 1980s, whose roots seem to lie in the anti-sexual attitudes of conservative Christians and in the authoritarian, prudish feminism of figures such as Andrea Dworkin. It’s more of the “same old same old” pathologizing of sex that’s been such a dreary part of American life for centuries.

Third, the type of “treatment” Spacey and Weinstein are receiving for this trumped up malady is 12-step treatment, which is ineffective across the board. (See “Alcoholics Anonymous is Not Effective” for info on the granddaddy of and model for all subsequent 12-step programs; see also the authoritative Handbook of Alcoholism Treatment Approaches, by Reid Hester and William Miller.)

So, Spacey and Weinstein are receiving (insofar as it’s 12-step based) ineffective treatment for an imaginary addiction, while their real problem — their willingness to use their positions of power to exploit and abuse others — goes unaddressed.

In the end, it seems that all they’ve done is find a convenient way to remove themselves from the spotlight, while giving the appearance of doing something about their awful behavior. They’ll emerge from rehab in January, their PR flacks will proclaim them rehabilitated — and they’ll quite probably go back to business as usual, insofar as they can get away with it.

That’s a shame for both Spacey, Weinstein, and their victims, and for the rest of us, because sexual abuse by the powerful has wider than individual implications. It’s a symptom of the sickness at the heart of our current authoritarian, hierarchical political and economic organization that gives some vast power over others. This whole affair could have spurred much needed discussion about that sickness. But it hasn’t, and likely won’t, especially as it’s being addressed as a matter of individual failure rather than pervasive sociopolitical failure.


A few years ago Sharp and Pointed posted “AA Is Religious Not Spiritual” in two parts. That was a bit inconvenient for readers, so here’s the text in full.

* * *

Alcoholics Anonymous: Cult or Cure? front cover

by Chaz Bufe, author of Alcoholics Anonymous: Cult or Cure?

AA’s Religious Origins

Members of Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) routinely assert that AA is “spiritual, not religious,” though even a cursory glance at AA’s practices and official (“conference approved”) literature reveals the opposite to be true.

One of the most widespread myths about Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) is that it has existed as an independent organization from day one, from the day in 1935 that Bill Wilson met AA’s other co-founder, Bob Smith, in Akron, Ohio. When they met, Smith and Wilson were both members of a Protestant evangelical group called the Oxford Group Movement (OGM), or more simply the Oxford Groups.

The Oxford Groups — which had nothing to do with Oxford University, nor the city of Oxford; they merely traded on the name — were founded in the 1920s by the Reverend Frank N. D. Buchman, notable for his lavish lifestyle, entirely financed by his followers; his right-wing views (in 1936 he described Heinrich Himmler as “a great lad”); his virulent prudery and homophobia; and his targeting of the rich, powerful, and prominent for recruitment. Smith and Wilson evidently found all this attractive, as they were both enthusiastic OGM members.

Convinced that Oxford Group principles were the key to overcoming alcohol abuse (and all other problems in life), they devoted themselves to carrying the Oxford Group message to other alcoholics. What they called the “alcoholic squadron of the Akron Oxford Group” remained as part of the Oxford Group Movement until 1939, and the group Bill Wilson founded in New York remained part of the Oxford Group Movement until late 1937.

The reasons that AA parted ways with the Oxford Group Movement had nothing to do with differences over ideology; rather, they had to do with personality conflicts, the fear that Catholics would be forbidden to join what was to become AA as long as it was part of a Protestant organization, and, quite possibly, embarrassment over OGM founder Frank Buchman’s statements in an August 26, 1936 New York World Telegram interview in which he said, “Thank heaven for a man like Adolf Hitler,” and in which he pined for “a God-controlled Fascist dictatorship.” This was a possible contributing factor to the split of what was to become AA from the Oxford Groups, though it was over a year before the New York group severed formal ties to the OGM, and approximately three years until the Akron group did so. (It’s worth mentioning as an aside that the manner in which AA treats this interview in its “conference approved” Wilson biography, Pass It On, is blatantly dishonest.)

One reason that this link between AA and the Oxford Group Movement is not more widely known is that during the years following the adoption of the name Alcoholics Anonymous, AA never credited the Oxford Group Movement for anything — even though AA took its central beliefs, program, and practices almost unaltered from the OGM. For instance, there is not a single acknowledgment of the Oxford Groups in Alcoholics Anonymous, AA’s “Big Book.” It wasn’t until the late 1950s, in Alcoholics Anonymous Comes of Age, that Bill Wilson and AA (partially) acknowledged AA’s debt to the Oxford Groups. Even today, most AA members know little if anything about the AA/OGM connection.

The Origin of the 12 Steps

Here are the steps, the backbone of the AA “program,” taken directly from AA’s “Big Book,” Alcoholics Anonymous:

1. We admitted we were powerless over alcohol—that our lives had become unmanageable.
2. Came to believe that a power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity.
3. Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood Him.
4. Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves.
5. Admitted to God, to ourselves, and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs.
6. Were entirely ready to have God remove all these defects of character.
7. Humbly asked Him to remove our shortcomings.
8. Made a list of all persons we had harmed, and became willing to make amends to them all.
9. Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others.
10. Continued to take personal inventory, and when we were wrong, promptly admitted it.
11. Sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with God as we understood Him, praying only for knowledge of His will for us and the power to carry that out.
12. Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these steps, we tried to carry this message to alcoholics, and to practice these principles in all our affairs.

A common myth — even within AA — is that AA co-founder Bill Wilson wrote the 12 steps entirely independently, that they were completely his own invention. A closely related myth common in AA is that Bill Wilson wrote the 12 steps directly under divine guidance. Neither myth has any but the scantiest relation to reality.

The author of AA’s 12 steps and the text portion of AA’s bible, the “Big Book” (though not the personal stories in it), Bill Wilson, was a dedicated Oxford Group member who was convinced that the principles of the Oxford Group Movement were the only route to recovery for alcoholics, and the 12 steps he included in the “Big Book” are a direct codification of those principles. Indeed, in Alcoholics Anonymous Comes of Age, Wilson directly credits the OGM as being the source of the teachings codified in the 12 steps (pp. 58-63, 160-167). Further, in a letter to former OGM American leader Rev. Sam Shoemaker, Wilson stated:

The Twelve Steps of A.A. simply represented an attempt to state in more detail, breath, and depth, what we had been taught–primarily by you [Rev. Shoemaker]. Without this, there could have been nothing–nothing at all. (quoted by Dick B. in Design for Living: The Oxford Groups contribution to Early A.A., p. 10)

Wilson also stated publicly:

Where did early A.A.’s … learn about moral inventory, amends for harm done, turning our wills and lives over to God? Where did we learn about meditation and prayer and all the rest of it? … [S]traight from Dr. Bob’s and my own early association with the Oxford Groups … (quoted in the AA publication, The Language of the Heart: Bill W.’s Grapevine Writings, p. 198)

To be more specific, the Oxford Group principles of personal powerlessness and the necessity of divine guidance are codified in steps 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, and 11. the principle of confession is embodied in steps 4, 5, and 10. The principle of restitution to those one has harmed is embodied in steps 8 and 9. And the principle of continuance is embodied in steps 10 and 12.

There is not a single original concept in the 12 steps. They all came directly from the Protestant evangelical Oxford Group Movement. (see Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions, pp. 48 & 97)

It’s noteworthy that alcohol is mentioned only in the first step, which strongly implies that alcoholics cannot overcome their problems on their own. The remainder of the steps implore alcohol abusers to engage in religious activities (prayer, confession) and to “turn [their] lives and [their] wills over to the care of God.”

Alcoholics Anonymous and 12 Steps and 12 Traditions

Much of the rest of the “Big Book” is just as religious, if not more so, than the 12 steps. In his comments immediately preceding the steps, Bill Wilson exhorts the reader: “Remember that we deal with alcohol — cunning, baffling, powerful! Without help it is too much for us. But there is One who has all power–that one is God May you find Him now!” (p. 58) Wilson also devotes an entire chapter (Chapter 4: “We Agnostics”) to attacking atheists and agnostics as “prejudice[d]” or crazy, and to presenting belief in God as the only way to restore “sanity.” Wilson also recommends that AA members “work” the seventh step through prayer, and even provides the wording for a prayer to “My Creator.” (p. 76) It’s also worth noting that the “Big Book” is saturated with religious terms. There are well over 200 references to God, capitalized masculine pronouns that refer to God (“He,” “Him”), or synonyms for God (“Creator,” “Father,” etc.) in its 164 pages of text — and this doesn’t even take into account such terms in the personal stories that make up the bulk of the book.

AA’s second — and second most important –book, Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions, also written by Wilson, is just as religious as the “Big Book.” For instance, the nine pages devoted to “working” step 2 contain at least 30 references to God, synonyms for it, or capitalized masculine pronouns referring to it.

Wilson also repeatedly exhorts the reader to pray, noting in one place that “Those of us who have come to make regular use of prayer would no more do without it than we would refuse air, food, or sunshine.” (p. 97)

And in his discussion of step 4, making “a searching and fearless moral inventory,” Wilson makes a truly extraordinary recommendation: that the list of one’s “moral defects” be based on “a universally recognized list of major human failings–the Seven Deadly Sins [!] of pride, greed, lust, anger, gluttony, envy, and sloth.” (p. 48) Contrary to Wilson’s assertion, these are not “a universally recognized list of major human failings”; rather, they are a specifically Christian list of sins enumerated by Pope Gregory the Great in the sixth century. (Even ignoring its origin, one wonders why this “universally recognized list” would omit such obvious “defects” as cruelty, hypocrisy, intrusiveness, exploitation of others, and sanctimoniousness.) That Wilson would make such an extraordinary recommendation underlines the Christian origins and orientation of AA and its “program.”

Common AA Practices

As for AA’s practices, most meetings open with a prayer to God, the Serenity Prayer: “God grant me the serenity to accept the things that I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.” Most meetings also feature reading (and often discussion) of the 12 steps, with their exhortations to pray and to turn one’s life and will over to God. And most AA meetings close with the reading of a specifically Christian prayer, the Lord’s Prayer.

AA and the Establishment Clause

Indeed, the religious nature of AA and its “program” is so obvious that three federal courts of appeal (the 2nd, 7th, and 9th circuit courts–the next level down from the Supreme Court), two state supreme courts (Tennessee and New York), and nine federal district courts have ruled that government-coerced attendance at AA and NA (Narcotics Anonymous — a clone of AA) is unconstitutional in that it violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, because AA is religious in nature. (There have been no contrary rulings on the appeal level, but unfortunately there is no national binding precedent because the Supreme Court has refused to hear appeals of any of these rulings. Without this binding precedent, government-coerced AA and NA attendance continues on a piecemeal basis across the country.)

Given all this, it seems amazing that AA members routinely and vehemently assert that AA is “spiritual, not religious.” There are two primary reasons that they do this. The first is that AA is a very anti-intellectual organization, in which honest questions and skeptical attitudes are viewed as “disease symptoms,” and in which great emphasis is placed upon unquestioning acceptance of revealed wisdom. Three of the most common AA slogans embody this anti-intellectual attitude: “Utilize, don’t analyze,” “Let go and let God,” and “Your best thinking got you here.” So, in a milieu which demands blind acceptance and denigrates critical thought, AA members hear that AA is “spiritual, not religious” and repeat it like parrots (which is unfair to parrots).

AA members who own treatment facilities or work in them have an additional incentive to repeat the “spiritual, not religious” mantra: money. In 1990, over 93 percent of treatment facilities in the United States were 12-step facilities, and treatment was a $10-billion-a-year industry. Very probably even more money is at stake today. If 12-steppers who own or work in treatment facilities would honestly admit that their approach is religious in nature, that river of government and insurance-industry cash would dry up in short order.

Ultimately, one must ask that if a program based on faith in God and on prayer to “Him” isn’t religious, what is?

AA and Spirituality

One might also ask what’s spiritual about encouraging blind acceptance? What’s spiritual about discouraging critical thinking? What’s spiritual about disparaging those who ask honest questions? What’s spiritual about encouraging people to identify with destructive past behaviors? What’s spiritual about telling people that they’re “diseased” for life? “What’s spiritual about telling people that they’re “powerless” to solve their own problems? What’s “spiritual” about inculcating dependency? What’s spiritual about issuing destructive, self-fulfilling prophecies? What’s spiritual about telling vulnerable people that their only alternatives to AA are “jails, institutions, or death”?

These are things religions do. As for AA:

  • Blind acceptance? Check.
  • Discouragement of critical thinking? Check.
  • Ostracism of doubters (“heretics”)? Check.
  • Identification of self with sins (past behaviors)? Check.
  • Diseased (“sinful”) members? Check.
  • Personal powerlessness? Check.
  • Dependence on an institution for salvation? Check.
  • Fear-mongering about an inevitable downward spiral if one abandons the institution and its teachings? Check.

 

It’s time for some honesty. It’s time for AA to admit it’s religious, not spiritual.

Related Posts


Alcoholics Anonymous: Cult or Cure? front coverby Chaz Bufe, author of Alcoholics Anonymous: Cult or Cure?

Chris Hedges’ series on RT, “On Contact with Chris Hedges,” has a new episode titled “The Fatal Addiction.” In it, Hedges does a fine job of presenting the human cost — the heartache, the deaths (50,000 last year in the U.S.) — caused by opioid addiction and overdoses.

While he succeeds at that, he doesn’t deal with the causes of addiction, nor with the failed, dominant approaches to curbing drug addiction, nor with better approaches. (Of course, it’s too much to expect any of this in a half-hour documentary, and one hope Hedges will deal with these matters in future episodes.)

Since “The Fatal Addiction” doesn’t tackle these issues, we will here. Please consider the following:

  • The dominant view of addiction in the U.S. is that it’s both a result of moral failings and is a “disease” or “illness.” (See AA’s “Big Book.”) This is  wrong on both counts, which can be easily seen when you look at historical addiction and overdose rates. They’re not steady, but vary dramatically over time.

Opioid overdose deaths have multiplied tenfold over the last two decades in the U.S.; reported rates of alcoholism have also fluctuated considerably over the years; the rate of tobacco addiction has plummeted in recent decades; and 95% of American soldiers who were addicted to heroin in Vietnam kicked it without treatment after they came home.

If addiction was caused by moral “shortcomings” (see AA’s 12 steps), one might ask whether former tobacco addicts became more moral over the years, whether morality skyrocketed among heroin-addicted Vietnam vets after they returned home, and whether the spiking opioid addiction rate has been caused by a mass outbreak of individual depravity.

If addiction is a “disease,” not a behavior, as we’re constantly told by 12-step treatment professionals, 12-stepping celebrities, and reporters who accept that absurd assertion at face value and who haven’t done their jobs (investigating, analyzing, raising awkward questions), one might ask the following: Why would the rates of addiction to different substances vary so radically from one substance to another in the same time periods, why would the rates of addiction to single substances vary so radically over time, and what does disease “theory” predict about rates of addiction in the years ahead?

Disease “theory” advocates have no answers to these questions, because disease “theory” is a “theory” only in the popular sense of the term (a conjecture or wild guess). In a word, it’s an assertion. It is in no way a scientific theory, and hence cannot provide answers; its adherents cannot use it to generate testable (falsifiable) predictions.

The dominant 12-step view of addiction (that it results from moral shortcomings and is a “disease”) is very, very wrong.

(As for the actual roots of addiction, one can look to psychological factors — stress and hopelessness, to oversimplify — and the environmental factors contributing to stress and hopelessness. I dealt with this in a separate post, “AA, the War on Drugs, and Disastrous Misconceptions,” so I’ll leave the matter here.)

  • As for AA and the treatment approaches derived from AA with its incorrect assertions about “moral” failings and “disease,” they’re every bit as ineffective as you’d expect.

Twelve-step groups such as AA and its clones (NA, CA, etc.) produce results no better than the rate of spontaneous remission, as shown by the best available studies: studies with control groups and random assignment of subjects, mass-participation longitudinal studies, and AA’s own triennial surveys. I summarized this evidence in “Alcoholics Anonymous Is Not Effective,” so again I’ll leave the matter here.

The formal (“professional”) 12-step treatment programs derived from AA are just as ineffective as AA itself. (I haven’t put up anything about this on the blog, but deal with the matter at length in Alcoholics Anonymous: Cult or Cure?)

One telling segment in Chris Hedges’ documentary is with an interviewee who mentions an addict who’s been in and out of rehab 17 times, which the interviewee says is typical. (The numerous 12-step references in the documentary [“meetings,” “sponsors,” “recovering addicts”] are equally typical.)

Clearly, the dominant American approaches to addiction aren’t working. Why, beyond faulty “moral failings” / “disease” premises?

  • For one thing, we’ve been stuck with the authoritarian, worse-than-useless “war on drugs” and the criminalization of addicts and recreational drug users for decades. This has resulted in untold suffering and incredible waste of tax money (easily $1 trillion over the years, and currently a good $50 to $70 billion per year).  Criminalization has ruined countless lives to no good effect, and it’s been utterly ineffective at reducing drug use and addiction. If you doubt this, consider the number of opioid overdose deaths over the years, that hard drugs are freely available to almost anyone who wants them (see Hedges’ “The Fatal Addiction“), and have become both cheaper and more powerful as the “war on drugs” has ground on.

So, what does work? What will reduce drug use, addiction rates, and deaths from overdoses?

  • On the purely personal level, the only treatment approaches with good evidence of efficacy are cognitive behavioral therapy approaches. (I deal with this in the final paragraphs of “Alcoholics Anonymous Is Not Effective.”)

I should note that methadone “treatment” merely substitutes a legal synthetic narcotic for illegal narcotics; this is substitution, not treatment — it keeps users dependent on an addictive substance.

  • On the societal level, it’s obvious that the “war on drugs” and criminalization of drug users and addicts must be abandoned.

Not only has criminalization of drug users and addicts failed to reduce the rates of drug use and drug addiction, it has taken an incredible human and economic toll. It’s done nothing to reduce the availability nor the price of drugs. And it’s a major component of “big government” intrusion into the lives of individuals.

Criminalization of drugs and drug users has been an utter disaster.

(Those who profit from the enslavement of “war on drugs” prisoners might disagree.)

Criminalization of drugs and their users is in large part directly responsible for the tens of thousands of overdose deaths every year in the U.S. Why? There is no quality control with illegal drugs. Those who buy them (especially opioids) are quite literally gambling with their lives, and multitudes lose that gamble every year.

So, is legalization (or at least decriminalization) a better approach?

Yes.

In Portugal, where drug use was decriminalized in 2001, the rate of death from overdoses has plummeted, as shown in a recent Washington Post article, “Why hardly anyone dies from a drug overdose in Portugal.” The rate of opioid addiction has fallen in half. Portuguese taxpayers aren’t paying ungodly amounts of money annually to lock up drug users and drug addicts. And Big Brother isn’t intruding (or at least intruding less) into one aspect of the lives of individuals.

  • Finally, here’s a question that almost no one asks, and even fewer try to answer: Why do millions of Americans feel so stressed, so hopeless that they drink themselves to death or play Russian Roulette with hard drugs?

The answer to that question has been available for decades.