27 years biatch

[blunttech]

How the hell do you know?

because heeter is battling his dual addictions but is still in the denial stage.
alcohol and cock

[Farbin Kaiber]

because heeter is battling his dual addictions but is still in the denial stage.
alcohol and cock

Those two go hand in hand. pun not intended.

[rwh11385]

oh trust me,,,,we all know you arent stupid heeter.......but if you did choose to do them you would have no issues using heroin and meth in moderation correct heeter? i mean thats what you are saying right? i just want to be clear

i was talking about alcohol. a lot of people can :drink: without running with all the substances they can abuse like you did.

No one ever said that abstaining is the ONLY viable means. That's not what this thread was about. YOU came in and called everyone who this method HAS worked for a cop out. That's when people got pissed.

No one else said "That's great for you, but that's not the only possible way - just as many people successfully dealt with the issue with moderation and self-control". People were advising younger people who wonder if they have issues (TwoJs) and it seems in the thread that everyone is focused on only one viable option.

Like I said before, just because I got a speeding ticket didn't mean I gave up driving. Going the speed limit and taking a defensive driving course may not be easy if someone likes to go fast but it is possible to deal with that issue. Same with making better choices about drinking.

Whoever mentioned high schoolers probably was getting into a lot of other issues - when kids have emotional problems or have stress at school they look sometimes to alcohol for the solution and that becomes intertwined with the issues of divorce or break-up or whatever may be going on... even if you go cold-turkey on the Wild Turkey - those problems will still be there. Solve the problems, and it's not improbable that disassociated enjoyment of alcohol cannot be done responsibly. The whole ALL OR NOTHING approach is too simplistic to actually be too useful except for people who want to be convinced that, or feel too powerless to handle something in between.

[Jand3rson]

Hey, but Josh perhaps you want a forum where EVERYONE is forced to think the exact same way and people who don't buy into it are flamed.

so be it


thought this was america though

That's not what I want. But you could have done things differently. You could have just come in saying "I don't agree with how AA works" or something like that, but you instead just kicked everyone that it has worked for in the teeth by saying it's a cop-out and that they're too weak to handle drugs and alcohol in moderation. You were out of line from the beginning. Instead of presenting your argument in a civil manner, you instead just insulted everyone.

[rwh11385]

How the hell do you know?

If someone has issues with drinking, there's the temptation to start drinking and/or the inability to realize when they've had too much.
Not giving into #1 prevents #2 from being an issue. Don't you read anything?

[rwh11385]

That's not what I want. But you could have done things differently. You could have just come in saying "I don't agree with how AA works" or something like that, but you instead just kicked everyone that it has worked for in the teeth by saying it's a cop-out and that they're too weak to handle drugs and alcohol in moderation. You were out of line from the get-go, and you know it.

Maybe, but like I replied to parkerbink - there's a difference in choosing to abstain because you want to and believing its the only way.
All too much of that belief seemed to be overwhelming in the thread so I was annoyed by the sheep.

There's a difference between a difference of opinion and trying to make one opinion the only one. Everyone who attacked on me was defending the norm that was existing in the thread that the only feasible solution was abstaining. A group of open-minded people would allow for the moderation, abstain-because-of-choice-and-risk-reduction, and abstaining-for-fear-of-death-and-need-support-of-religion version.

[Jand3rson]

Maybe, but like I replied to parkerbink - there's a difference in choosing to abstain because you want to and believing its the only way.

I agree 100%.

[FredK]

yo heet let's talk about the devil weed

[z31maniac]

Thanks for the new sig Mr. Anderson.

[rwh11385]

yo heet let's talk about the devil weed

Some people get by but for the majority of people I know and many of whom I have been friends with - it is a great negative influence on their future. Beyond behavioral changes, there is also employment-loss risk, and the (present in 39 states absolutely and all most likely) legal risk. Not worth it IMO, and don't feel positively about those who use it, and wish those I know who do would stop.

[blunttech]

"No one else said "That's great for you, but that's not the only possible way - just as many people successfully dealt with the issue with moderation and self-control"."

back that up with facts heeter. you cant because you spew bullshit you have no clue about

[Farbin Kaiber]

devil weed, let's chat. Paging Jeremiel5.

[rwh11385]

"No one else said "That's great for you, but that's not the only possible way - just as many people successfully dealt with the issue with moderation and self-control"."

back that up with facts heeter. you cant because you spew bullshit you have no clue about

there was a study, it's bookmarked at home and thought i quoted it in this thread. 12% abstainers 11.7% moderation I think in the fully recovered group (among those who sought help that is, not just decided to moderate problem drinking on their own). also, a study of those who followed AA did better but if they went and didn't bought it, they actually did much worse. overall, the success rate is the same as spontaneous remission, so the effect of AA is 0% - unless Luke has different numbers

[StereoInstaller1]

Maybe Luke aka stereoinstaller can post that evidence he claims to have, but every single thing I've seen has AA not having an improvement of remission than spontaneous but rather sometimes worse.

First, let me tell you this: the only requirement for membership in AA is a desire to stop drinking.

Get it, the ONLY requirement, as in nothing else? No secret handshake, no special powers, nothing...just a DESIRE to stop drinking.

If you want to quit drinking, AA is the ONLY proven place to go. There is no organization, no structure, no leaders, nothing. AA has no money, no promotional gimmicks, no membership drives, absolutely nothing.

Just a bunch of sober drunks who try to help other drunks get sober.

AA passes the hat at each meeting just to pay rent, buy coffee and help keep the offices open...which are 99.99% staffed with volunteers.

In fact, I will offer you this: Try it for 30 days. Prove to us you can do it. Prove to us that your argument has actual substance, prove that AA is a cult...If brainwashing is happening, it sounds to me like there are plenty of dirty minds that need washing.


I can tell you this: The statistics are very against anyone attempting to get sober. Few make it past their first week. Fewer still make it past their first month...and so on...very few make it past their first year, much less decade.

Since you say you like the debate, I have proof (as in statistics) that alcohol is responsible for over 100,000 deaths per year.

Statistically speaking, consider the enormous numbers of people who have tried AA, first to "dry out" and then tried "moderation" and then "dropped out" of AA...the evidence is clear..."problem drinkers" do NOT respond well to "moderation".

If I knew more about how to dig up good statistics, I would find out how many people who were once cited for DUI (meaning they HAD to do some kind of treatment) ended up dead, due to alcohol, either cirrhosis (or other alcohol related medical issues), fatal drunk driving (or how many others did they kill).

Maybe some smart college graduate could find some statistics to go with that.

So, basically, buckwheat, I can show you many drinkers who do moderation just fine. My GF is a perfect example. One of millions, I am sure.

Moderate drinkers are not who we are talking about here. We are talking about the Chronic Alcoholic...the classic drunk. Unable to live even a single day without getting (or staying) drunk, the guy (or girl) who has drank (or drugged, right?) away all he ever had, hasn't drawn a sober breath in years.

Show me one "Chronic Alcoholic" with documented late stage alcoholism who adopted a policy of "moderation" and has lived 27 years with "moderate" alcohol use.

Yeah right...didn't think so.

In fact, if you show me ONE, just one, and I will show you 10 or more who gave up alcohol in late stage chronic alcoholism and have lived 27 years.

In fact, I already have their stories in a book, all collected and neatly printed.

Show me what you got, buckwheat!

You say it is a copout, I say you are talking out your ass. I have evidence collected over damn near 100 years...what you got?

Luke

[Turf1600]

If someone has issues with drinking, there's the temptation to start drinking and/or the inability to realize when they've had too much.
Not giving into #1 prevents #2 from being an issue. Don't you read anything?

How do you know you have problems with drinking before you start??