WINNING?: Charlie Sheen claims to have cured himself of drug addiction. In fact, says Sally Satel, most addicts quit on their own.
Image: flickr/Sharon Graphics
-
The Wisdom of Psychopaths
In this engrossing journey into the lives of psychopaths and their infamously crafty behaviors, the renowned psychologist Kevin Dutton reveals that there is a...
Read More »
When asked recently on The Today Show how he cured himself of his addiction, Two and a Half Men sitcom star Charlie Sheen replied, "I closed my eyes and made it so with the power of my mind."
Until last month, he was the highest paid actor on TV, despite his well-known bad-boy lifestyle and persistent problems with alcohol and cocaine. After the rest of his season's shows were canceled by producers, Sheen has gone on an interview tear with many bizarre statements, including that he is on a "winning" streak. His claims of quitting a serious drug habit on his own, however, is perhaps one of his least eccentric statements.
A prevailing view of substance abuse, supported by both the National Institute on Drug Abuse and Alcoholics Anonymous, is the disease model of addiction. The model attributes addiction largely to changes in brain structure and function. Because these changes make it much harder for the addict to control substance use, health experts recommend professional treatment and complete abstinence.
But some in the field point out that many if not most addicts successfully recover without professional help. A survey by Gene Heyman, a research psychologist at McLean Hospital in Massachusetts, found that between 60 to 80 percent of people who were addicted in their teens and 20s were substance-free by their 30s, and they avoided addiction in subsequent decades. Other studies on Vietnam War veterans suggest that the majority of soldiers who became addicted to narcotics overseas later stopped using them without therapy.
Scientific American spoke with Sally Satel, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research and lecturer in psychiatry at the Yale University School of Medicine, about quitting drugs without professional treatment. Satel was formerly a staff psychiatrist at the Oasis Clinic in Washington, D.C., where she worked with substance abuse patients.
[An edited transcript of the interview follows.]
Is it possible to cure yourself of addiction without professional help? How often does that happen?
Of course it's possible. Most people recover and most people do it on their own. That's in no way saying that everyone should be expected to quit on their own and in no way denies that quitting is a hard thing to do. This is just an empirical fact. It is even possible that those who quit on their own could have quit earlier if they sought professional help. The implicit message isn't that treatment isn't important for many—in fact it should probably be made more accessible—but it is simply a fact that most people cure themselves.
How do addicts stop on their own?
They have to be motivated. It takes the realization that their family, their future, their employment—all these—are becoming severely compromised. The subtext isn't that they just "walk away" from the addiction. But I've had a number of patients in the clinic whose six-year-old says, "Why don't you ever come to my ball games?" This can prompt a crisis of identity causing the addict to ask himself, "Is this the type of father I want to be?"
If not, there are lots of recovery strategies that users figure out themselves. For example, they change whom they associate with. They can make it harder to access drugs, perhaps by never carrying cash with them. People will put obstacles in front of themselves. True, some people decide they can't do it on their own and decide to go into treatment—that's taking matters into one's own hands, too.
What do professional drug addiction programs offer that is difficult to replicate on one's own?
If you're already in treatment, you've made a big step. Even for court-ordered treatment, people often internalize the decision as their own. You get a lot of support. You get instruction in formal relapse prevention therapy. You might get methadone for withdrawal and medications for an underlying psychiatric problem.
Most experts regard drug addiction as a brain disease. Do you agree?
I'm critical of the standard view promoted by the National Institute on Drug Abuse that addiction is a brain disease. Naturally, every behavior is mediated by the brain, but the language "brain disease" carries the connotation that the afflicted person is helpless before his own brain chemistry. That is too fatalistic.
It also overlooks the enormously important truth that addicts use drugs to help them cope in some manner. That, as destructive as they are, drugs also serve a purpose. This recognition is very important for designing personalized therapies.
Don't most studies show that addicts do better with professional help?
People who come to treatment tend to have concurrent psychiatric illness, and they also tend to be less responsive to treatment. Most research is done on people in a treatment program, so by definition you've already got a skewed population. This is called the "clinical illusion," and it applies to all medical conditions. It refers to a tendency to think that the patients you see in a clinical setting fully represent all people with that condition. It's not true. You're not seeing the full universe of people.
Based on his public interviews, does it seem likely that Charlie Sheen cured himself?
I doubt it. Of course, I haven't examined him, but based on what one sees, one would be concerned about ongoing drug use and underlying mental illness.
Is there brain damage from drug use? Is it possible to recover from such damage?
The only drugs that are neurotoxic are alcohol, methamphetamine, probably MDMA [ecstasy], and some inhalants.* Cocaine can lead to micro strokes. That's brain damage. Yes, addiction changes the brain but this does not doom people to use drugs forever. The most permanent change is memories. Some people have stronger memories and they are more cue-reactive [more reactive to stimulus that triggers the reward pathway]. Nonaddicts won't show that level of cue-reactivity.
For some people the addiction and withdrawal will be more intense through genetically mediated problems. Those people have a harder time stopping.
What else might account for Charlie Sheen's strange behavior in those interviews?
One would want to explore the possibility of underlying psychiatric problems. The grandiosity, the loose associations, the jumbled flow suggest a thought disorder. Heavy, heavy drug use could cause that. Stimulant use can cause temporary thought disorder or intensify an underlying thought disorder or hypomanic state. To try to make a good diagnosis, whatever ongoing drug use there is would have to stop. After the withdrawal phase is resolved clinicians would then need to see if an underlying thought or mood disorder persisted. That would aid in parsing how much of a confusing clinical picture is due to drug use and how much is due to a primary mental disorder.
*Correction (3/7/11): This sentence was edited after posting. LSD and methadone were removed, whereas methamphetamine and MDMA were added to the list of neurotoxic drugs.
See what we're tweeting about
62 Comments
Add CommentIt's interesting that a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research and lecturer in psychiatry at the Yale University School of Medicine thinks that "The only drugs that are neurotoxic are alcohol, methadone, LSD and some inhalants."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease cite a source for your claim regarding the neurotoxicity of LSD.
Thanks.
Umm... LSD is neurotoxic? I don't think so. What is this nonsense?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDIagnosis from afar is illegal. A doctor must see the patient, not just listen to news reports.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA missing piece to this fascinating conversation is the distinction between drug use, drug dependence and drug addiction. My hunch is that it is missing because a clear cut distinction may not exist.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSome people use drugs for recreation and get hooked. Others use the same drug in the same amounts and are not hooked. Some people rely on drugs for easing anxiety and dulling pain.
But when they learn to cope with their anxiety or get out of the stressful situation or when the physical pain ends, they can stop using the drugs on their own. Yet others can't bear the withdrawal and need help.
And, severely addicted people on certain narcotics not only need help in getting off their addiction. They need help because suddenly stopping their intake, with or without withdrawal symptoms, can put their lives at risk.
And these boundaries are blurred.
Plus, people who do not go into a defined treatment program for addiction recovery may have created their own healing environment by using a combination of spiritual programs, educational classes, friend and family support systems, exercise and nutritional improvements, shedding drug using companions and getting regular medical check ups.
Individual people are incredibly varied in their strengths and vulnerabilities.
This valuable conversation, in my opinion, could help many people if we could explore more deeply the detailed realities of human experience.
Joanna Poppink, MFT
Los Angeles psychotherapist
http://eatingdisorderrecovery.com
author: Healing Your Hungry Heart
08/11 Conari Press http://amzn.to/grcDfG
Agree with gspliz and pasander. Looks like Salley Satel left Yale (according to her bio), and now writes books and speculates and passes mis-information. Methadone has only been reported to be 'neurotoxic' in a couple of case reports "http://www.ajnr.org/cgi/content/full/31/3/565", along with heroin, but both are relatively neuro-benign. Methamphetamines can lead to a persistent psychotic state and other psych disorders "http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21055832" presumably through neurotoxic effects. LSD has not been consistently associated with any direct neurotoxicity, as above. Truth is, we probable have little knowledge of the full impact of chronic substance on the brain.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat said, I'm glad she's critical of the 100% Brain disease model of addiction--but others may disagree with me on this one.
so.. what types of things "should" charlie sheen be saying/doing to convince skeptical ppl he's really "alright"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere is some food for thought. People have been using drugs and alcohol for centuries or millenium. I would be very surprised if there was not something like co-evolution happening with their use. The multiple of psychiatric drug seems to me to be just new forms of old drugs. And these drugs "fix" certain metal disorders. Some of these narcotics were the cost of eating foods from the land that we don't eat any more. So, could it be that a changes in the brain, through brain chemistry and/or straight up brain damage, is need for those who co-evolved to deal with these naturally occurring chemicals.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy wife and I were addicted to cocaine for four years. One day, we both decided to quit, and it was pretty much that simple. Every now and then we still have a craving, but we never even entertain the thought. I don't think cocaine addiction is as bad for some people. I understand that for some it can be a nightmare, but for us it was quite easy. The key thing we did was cut all ties to our dealer and to our friends who did it. So yes, it is possible to cure yourself of drug addiction. Anti-drug zealots would have you believe that every person who tries drugs is instantly addicted for life, selling all their possessions, stealing from friends and family and turning tricks within a week. The reality is that only a tiny minority become that thoroughly addicted. The average person may need help overcoming addiction, but some of us can do it with relative ease.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisVery well said. Your analysis fits well with the reality of my experience. My wife and I overcame cocaine addiction by cutting all ties to that element, and falling back on the support system of friends and family. Thank you for sharing your knowledge on this subject.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, people can cure themselves. Depending upon the definition of 'cure', one can abstain. One item in the list of motivations was left out. You just get sick and tired of feeling sick and tired. The solution is to abstain, feel really (really) sick and tired for awhile, then feel a whole lot better for the rest of your life. However, we have to accept that there are physical addictions that require medical intervention during dry-out.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCharlie Sheen should not be saying anything to anybody to convince them/us that he is 'alright'. He should recognize recovery as an internal, personal, and imperative process. He needs to look for personal motivation. His life is probably based on reward systems for attaining other people's approval. Other people have nothing to do with his addiction or his recovery. He has everything to do with it. He needs to prove nothing, he needs approval of no one, he needs to simply decide that he will make choices that over time lead to recovery. Medical intervention and support may or may not be part of those choices. That would be up to him, not us. And finally, he does not 'need' to recover if he doesn't want to. He can live as he wants as can we all. I wish him the best.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree with many of the criticisms of the interview with Dr. Satel, however, she was simply offering her opinions of a celebrity she never interviewed herself and also she never viewed this man's private health documents. So, she was speaking very generally. When we study the brain and the effect powerful drugs have on the brain's chemistry, function, and ability to simply stop using ... Then the data becomes alarming in the instance of cocaine abuse, but crystal meth is horrifying. Charlie is not on crystal meth... One additional comment, it is totally plausible that Charlie indeed used the power of his mind to simply stop. But, if he fails and needs help, hopefully his family and friends will help him. Perhaps Dr. Satel might get a call from the Sheen family? Will she work pro bono? I mean will she work for free if Bono from the band U2 asks her to help out... LOL
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMyteensaver, selling things on blogs, funny. I met the kids hell bent to get away from over bearing parents. The home testing will only make them worst. Treat your kids like people and stop lying to them. Tell them you try pot once, you freaked out and couldn't deal with doing it again. Don't tell them you understand drug use. They already went past that amount of drug use. Now you need to give them the tools and knowledge to function in society. Give them your real life experience and don't be afraid to say I don't know what drugs are like, but I have seen the harm it does and what has happen to the friends I isolated in my earlier life. Kid(people) are not stupid, they know when you lie. I don't know if that is truly your story, but I have met too many parents like that. My father said to me when you want to quit smoking cigarettes you quit. Quitting is to stop smoking, nothing else. And I said it isn't that easy, well it was. I quit, thus I didn't smoke, nothing else. Charlie has quit, at least for the moment. He is nutty because he doesn't have drugs in him now. The nuttiness will pass as long as he doesn't create a cyclic use pattern.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am grateful that addicts generally do not read Scientific American newsletters because they are too busy in self-indulgent behavior.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am a recovering alcoholic of 23 years, and there is nothing more dangerous to an addict than give them the hope he or she could be cured. It is sad, I am sure that a few addicts are reading this article and will continue to use for an extra few years, they will live in misery because this article game them hope of cure, which they assume means, they can use the same as others around them, and not quit.
These are loose words for loose brains, who have lost the plot.
The topic is very intresting.We can cure ourself by the drug addiction but we have to undergo some rules and follow them strictly
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1)We should have self control on our body and we shoul be able to control our feelings and emotions.
2)We should have the ability or the power in ourself to make our mind control that we can do it and we should.
3)We should always keep our mind indulged so thjat we cannot think on this topic.
<a href="http://securitytool.org.uk"rel="dofollow">Security Tool</a>
The topic is very intresting.We can cure ourself by the drug addiction but we have to undergo some rules and follow them strictly
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1)We should have self control on our body and we shoul be able to control our feelings and emotions.
2)We should have the ability or the power in ourself to make our mind control that we can do it and we should.
3)We should always keep our mind indulged so thjat we cannot think on this topic.
<a href="http://securitytool.org.uk"rel="dofollow">Security Tool</a>
I would be very interested in reading a response from
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSalley Satel to the comments pertaining to the neurotoxicity of LSD.
Working in neurophychopharmacology for nearly 3 decades at an institution with very strong behavioral and chemical pharmacology departments, the statement of LSD and neurotoxicity needs to be taken with caution -- For example, in the 1990's there were a number of peer-reviewed papers that showed there may be some neuroprotection provided by LSD (a 5HT2A agonist that may block some of the damaging effects to serotonin receptors , whereas the hallucinogenic effects of LSD are at 5HT2C receptors -- for an example, see J. Neurosci, 1998, Vol 18, Issue 1); BUT more recent research (Neurosci Research Communications, 2004, Vol. 35, Issue 2) has shown that LSD can interact with other psychedelics (for example, MDMA) and facilitate neurotoxicity. The goal here is not to conclude decisively whether LSD can induce neurotoxicity or not, as such sweeping statements take no account of doses used in the studies, duration of exposure, cell systems or living systems used, the measurement used to make such a statement, etc -- but it should bring attention to the idea that LSD may have yet-to-be characterized mechanisms, either proximal or distal, in the cell and neural systems upon which they act -- and this is the nature of the current debate in the research of schedule I drugs, such as LSD, and whether they will ever have medical value. (Note:Schedule I drugs are those classified by the Controlled Substances Act as high potential for abuse, and to date, have no proven medical use.) The bottom line -- there is no black and white answer to the question, is LSD neurotoxic as it depends on a wide number of factors -- but ultimately, it is probably a "recreational drug" best avoided by man and rat alike.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is astounding to me that such knowledgable people are not aware that a total medically based cure for alcoholism is already in existance and has been for decades. It is called the Sinclair Method named after Dr. John David Sinclair. To quote from Wikipedia "The Sinclair Method is a treatment for alcoholism that involves the use of opiate antagonists such as naltrexone or nalmefene while continuing normal drinking habits in order to decrease the craving for alcohol over time. It relies upon a mechanism called pharmacological extinction, which works by blocking the positive reinforcement effects of ethanol-triggered endorphin in the brain."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am one example of a man who cured himself with this method. I am now 55yrs and drank nearly every night since I was 19. I tried AA and counselling and substitution of other drugs and managed 1 to 2 year periods of sobriety but always relapsed when under great personal stress. In mid 2009 I tried Sinclair's method. Within 6 weeks I had no desire, much less craving for alcohol. I was able to withdraw the naltrexone and found that the cure was permanent. These days I will ususally order a drink at a social function where others are drinking but I rarely finish it. Even in my darkest hours I just don't see alcohol as useful to me any longer. It is truly amazing!
As and aside, I spent years in AA and went to an AA based rehab. To read what I learned about how AA is not just useless but actually dangerous read my article, "Exposing the Myth of Alcoholics Anonymous" in 'Free Inquiry Magazine' (April/May 2009 Vol. 29 No. 3).
Regards...
I just hope he gets back to living life
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisQuote: there is nothing more dangerous to an addict than give them the hope he or she could be cured
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnswer: Theoretically one might think the opposite. Back in 1953 there was a study done in India which actually gave a 70% cure rate.
Lecithin has been shown to be an effective treatment.
" The lecithin treatment suggested by Ma Wen-Chao gave better results. A modification of this treatment in combination with glucose administered intravenously and by mouth, at the height of abstinence symptoms, gave even better results."
"Of 200 addicts treated in the Hospital for Tropical Diseases, Calcutta, 70% were cured."
Because you keep track of the number of years that you have been abstinent and because you consider addiction "hopeless" it is clear that you are a 12-stepper. You and Bill Wilson's religious cult have the most out-dated and nilhlistic view of addiction. You live in fear that you are one drink or hit away from disater. You attend ridiculous meetings and hang out with other addicts which is the exact opposite of what you should be doing which is to associate with straight people. You may be sober but the bottle or the pipe still runs your life.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is terribly sad. You should give yourself more credit. It is you that keeps you sober - not some invisible, impossible, imaginary "Higher Power". My advice to you is to grow up, throw away that stupid blue book, abandon superstition and get a life. You have been sober for 23 years - you are no longer addicted. Get it? If you don't want to drink/drug then don't; it's your choice and always has been. You are stronger than you think. Good luck!
I had to give up gluten, and it took over ten years to get comfortable with myself about it. I now have a lot better understanding about how to deal with people who offer me what is not good for me. But I wasn't able to erase all the biochemical effects of gluten. It looks like it is never going to be something I can dabble in.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLooking around, in general, recovery from addiction doesn't guarantee recovery from brain damage or heart disease or other conditions that can develop with substance use.
Avoiding a substance doesn't take away personality disorders, either.
Charlie Sheen comes across as a mess, clean or not. He seems such a shattered soul.
I am conducting university a class on psychedelics. I cover negatives very carefully. The statement that LSD is neurotoxic has no foundation. The article should be revised.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPsychmouse - There is a huge body of literature that shows the safety of LSD and that it is highly efficacious at achieving cures for addiction and depression. You need to educate yourself.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is virtually nothing that is not neurotoxic or otherwise in sufficient quantity, including water and aspirin. The statement regarding LSD's "neurotoxicity" is outrageous and utterly unscientific and unprofessional.
Anyone discussing toxicology who does not clearly state the dosage range that is safe and that which is toxic as well as exactly what the toxic effects are is simply a kind of liar. You cannot do that for LSD.
Regarding this statement:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The only drugs that are neurotoxic are alcohol, methadone, LSD and some inhalants."
The entire statement is just wrong. Dr. Satel does not know what she is talking about, period. I am appalled that a person who is this lacking in basic knowledge could be a psychiatrist treating patients. She shows a lack of knowledge at such a basic level that I would seriously question the validity of her credentials and wonder how she came to have them. She shows an appalling ignorance of basic principles of pharmacology and the chemistry of these compounds. I am seriously concerned and strongly recommend that the chief at her institution perform a thorough review of her level of expertise.
I will detail my severe problems with her statement.
First, the claim that those are the only drugs that are neurotoxic is completely false. There is a long list of substances that are neurotoxic which are drugs or were used as drugs.
Second, not qualifying statements about toxicity with dosage, route of administration and describing effects at the toxic level, up to LD-50 is a violation of basic pharmacology and toxicology.
Third, alcohol in moderation is not neurotoxic at all. Alcohol is neurotoxic in large quantities, but in moderate amounts it is beneficial.
Fourth, methadone is one of a long list opiate drugs. It is no more neurotoxic than any other opiate, or the opioid substances produced in the brain naturally. Opiate addicts do not suffer brain damage or nerve damage from it.
Fifth, LSD is not neurotoxic at any reasonable dosage. It becomes a highly effective pain killer at milligram+ doses and there was a short human study of it. There is suggestive evidence that LSD improves cognitive function in the elderly when used on a regular basis. LSD has massive literature for safe use. Put LSD into a nerve cell culture and it does not cause die-back, it has a mild stimulating effect on growth.
Sixth, yes there are inhalants that cause brain damage. Many hydrocarbons do, including methyl alcohol. These compounds also cause liver damage, but again, dosage is everything.
I am very seriously concerned about this person and what she is doing attending to patients.
My apologies. Let me rephrase my concern. This Sallie Satel person delivering lectures to students, and at Harvard of all places is astonishing and appalling.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI suggest that anyone connected with her institution recommend a thorough review of her qualifications and depth of knowledge. If a an undergrad or grad student came out with anything resembling her throwaway remark on an exam, oral or otherwise, I would flunk that student out of the course. If I overheard a grad student say it in even casual conversation in the cafeteria I would flag them for very thorough vetting and I do not believe they would be likely to continue with their studies.
Appalling. Just appalling. My god.
i want to thank you for giving a fair opinion on all of these issues. as one who has struggled and overcome many addictions in my life i commend you for taking into consideration the many varied and complex coping strategies that many different people have. it's rare to find one out there in this world that is willing to have a broad mind when it comes to these matters and doesn't dogmatically label addiction the way that some others narrowly do in their assertions based only on what they have experienced. just a "thumbs up" if you will lol...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCharlie Sheen in the news ... again? Why am I not surprised?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow one expresses one's personal liberty while doing none other harm is not my business.
When did America end its love of Liberty?
Many of the societal problems of drug addiction are linked to their high prices which are an inevitable effect of the ongoing war on drugs.
Can America cure itself of its addiction to the War on Drugs?
"I closed my eyes and made it so with the power of my mind."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPeople who do the quantities of drugs and alcohol Charlie Sheen does are no more able to "will it away" than they are able to fly to the moon. He will be back to his old ways in due time whether it's two months from now or two years from now.
He needs some kind of intervention,because he seems to be unwilling to admit that he has a problem. At 1.8 million an episode, he's not likely to recognize this. If I had that kind of money, I would go out the same way, but out, most assuredly, I would go.
Alcoholics Anonymous is frozen in time and is not open to any new information even though the founder did state that: "more will be revealed". Very sad that this organization continues to have as much influence as it does in this country. Tragically, people are dying unnecessarily as a result of misinformation promulgated by this group.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCongratulations on having the wisdom to recognize the terrible downside of cocaine addiction and the strength and determination to create your way out.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's so fabulous that you and your wife did this together!
Joanna
Thank you SA for some real journalism. Everyone else has been quick to dismiss Sheen as crazy for claiming that he can change his own behavior, but you were willing to deliver the facts - namely, that most people stop without treatment and 12-step programs.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is news to many people - but there is a large community of us who struggled with self-doubt in 12-step programs only to find that we were wasting our time and ending up worse off. We found that we were better off changing our problems on our own without that nonsense.
Here's a study which shows that 75% of people with substance dependence change their habits without treatment/12-steps: http://www.thecleanslate.org/self-change/substance-dependence-recovery-rates-with-and-without-treatment/
@timbo555 - You said "People who do the quantities of drugs and alcohol Charlie Sheen does are no more able to "will it away" than they are able to fly to the moon. He will be back to his old ways in due time whether it's two months from now or two years from now."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf this is the case, then how is it any better for him to get help of the treatment/AA variety which he's been getting for 22 long years now, while continuing to have periodic episodes of problematic substance use? What I mean is that your "prediction" of his changes lasting no longer than 2-24 months is the "reality" that has been happening for him all along while he's been involved in the recovery culture.
Ask the Experts.? That's it. I'm done with SciAm. Great history but very little real value left in content across the board. This specific article flavor was not the fault of Dr. Satel, but this article is garbage.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe disease theory is based on the work of a scientist called E M Jellinek, which was financed by Marty Mann, an early member of AA. Yale University asked him to retract his thesis, which he did. But his discredited work is still presented in rehabs as 'fact'. It was pronounced a disease to get health insurance cover.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA REALITY report just came out in the Scientific American today. Check 'most read stories'.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPeople who land at the door of our 90 day residential treatment center are not substance abusers. There are all kinds of statistics out there saying that 75% or 85% of all those who were addicted or who abused drugs eventually got free on there own. One might well ask how much damage they did to their families, friends, and society at large before they decided to cure themselves, but that's an argument for another day.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThen there is the mysterious fact of that 15% or so who seem not to be able to quit on their own, and who freely admit that they cannot. These are people who have been, like Charlie, in countless de-tox centers, jails, mental institutions, long term facilities, AA, CA, you name it.
They have succeeded in ruining the lives of countless people and have wasted millions of dollars of family money. Finally, they say they are done. But after ten or twenty years of this kind of abuse their brain chemistry is altered; in an alcoholic it is at least eighteen months before it returns to some semblance of normal. Their thinking is different from yours.
Does Mr. Sheen seem to be in his "right mind" to you? He may well be in a manic phase of his rumored bi-polar condition, or his agitated state may be the result of post-acute withdrawal from the $250,000.00 worth of coke he shot up in three or four months. (Awesome!) But the truth is that Mr. Sheen's drug use is the solution to his problem, not the problem itself. His drug use just medicates an underlying pathology.
I would have to guess that Mr.Sheen's fundamental problem is that he is unable to form meaningful, authentic relationships, for a variety of possible reasons. Bi-polar disorder for one, or there may be some axis-2 conditions at play. He certainly seems narcissistic, doesn't he? He certainly spreads the chaos around just like a champion borderline personality. There's a lot to be said for a psychiatric diagnosis.
In any event he is detached from society, from those that love him. He is angry as hell and in about as much psychic pain as I've seen in a while. He will die in this condition, because he has enough money to take himself out.
Or he will say enough, and "will" it to be so. You may be right. But I would send your black suit to the cleaners just in case.
As someone who has worked in the mental health field for close to 40 years I must say that AA and it's offshoots are extremely helpful for many people who suffer from various addictions. They are clearly not helpful for everyone, but for many people they have been what enables them to stay clean and sober or to quickly get back to that state if they have a slip.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAA may work for a tiny percentage of those who try it, but it fails for a vast majority of people. When you read the first step AA cuts you off at the knees by telling you that you are powerless and that going to faith healing meetings for the rest of your life is the only option. What is needed is self empowerment which is what the SMART Recovery program teaches people.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAA is a religion. Numerous courts in the U.S. have ruled that because AA is religious that it is unconstitutional to force citizens to join AA. Some people may prefer a religious approach, but clearly there is no science behind the 12 steps. Article about the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision that AA is religious: http://articles.sfgate.com/2007-09-08/bay-area/17259704_1_parole-officer-treatment-program-appeals-court
There are evidence based methods of recovery available for Mr. Sheen and he is correct to say that he can do it himself. AA cannot define what constitutes real sobriety. If Mr. Sheen succeeds in abstaining from drugs then he is by definition sober. Abstinence is sobriety despite what the dogma of AA teaches.
Unless you need a detox, which can be done within 4 days at home, you do not 'need help'. Alcoholism is not a disease. It was made into one in order for 'rehab' to qualify for health insurance cover. The theory on which the disease theory is based is flawed. Its author, E M Jellinek was asked by Yale University to return his thesis 'The Stages of Alcoholism', which he did. His work is still routinely presented as fact in 'rehabs'.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn my experience, most of what goes on in an AA or CA meeting has to do with discussions about how to be a better person. People come into the rooms having so wrecked their lives and the lives of others, that the process of becoming accountable is a very therapeutic first step towards re-integration into the human family.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHonesty, Hope, Faith, Courage, Integrity, Willingness, Humility, Brotherly Love, Perseverance, Self Discipline Spirituality, Service are fundamental principles that lead to sustained abstinence and a more meaningful life.
I drank and did drugs to feel more comfotable in social settings. A large percentage of the population does.
But a tiny percentage of the population drinks the way I do; I drink until I'm drunk, and I keep drinking until something stops me; I continue drinking in the face of repeated adverse consequences, in my case for decades. I become "beyond human aid". I finally admitted this. Charlie Sheen to my knowledge, has not. Acually, his greatest liability is his delusion of control.
Charlie and I are the people for whom AA has been a great help. Nobody can make me admit I am powerless. Nobody can admit for me that I am an alcoholic. Nor does anything of substance happen until I make the effort to work the steps and continue helping others. And just what is the downside of practicing the above principles in all my affairs? Is it better to practice honesty or dishonesty for instance?
Does it work? For most of those that have actually put it into practice, yes. But the people who hang out in AA without working the steps are analogous to cancer patients who go for radiation treatments but just hang out in the lobby. In an outcomes study they would only serve as a control group.
Timbo555 said: "Is it better to practice honesty or dishonesty for instance?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell supposedly you are to practice rigorous honesty in AA. However people who are new to AA are frequently told to "fake it until you make it." Those are two mutually exclusive concepts so even though honesty is better their is a clear conflict here. When I was in AA I asked my sponsor about that conflict and I was told that very question indicated that I was a toxic dry drunk. Those sorts of trips are laid on people all the time in AA. There is also the issue that AA claims not to be religious when in fact half of the steps mention God or a higher power. Rigorous honesty should compel them to acknowledge that they are a religion. All those court cases that declared AA to be religious mean that any authority that orders a person to join AA can be sued for violating your Constitutional rights. I encourage anyone in this position to hire an attorney and resist no matter who has ordered you to join a religion. It is exactly the same as a judge ordering a non Catholic to go to Mass.
Link to documents about courts calling AA religious:
http://www.morerevealed.com/courts/index.html
Ms. Martha, I am perfectly willing to stipulate that AA is a religion. Hell, its a religion, a cult, a floor wax, a desert topping, a Spiritual program; whatever floats your boat. Sue away. Most of those people need to be someplace else anyway.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI will further stipulate that your sponsor is a great big gigantic butt-head for treating you the way she did.
Now, can you stipulate to me that your argument about rigorous honesty and the inocuous "fake it till you make" slogan is just the tiniest bit specious? Only the most rigid and unyielding of thought processes would understand that seeming contradiction as some sort of deal-breaker don't you think? I can think of a million or so contradictions in terms just like that one that don't stop me in my tracks and make me want to give up.
Nobody is trying to trip you up. Be rigorously honest and don't "fake it till you make it", if that aphorism bothers you. It's not part of the steps or traditions; your not required to hold those two thoughts in your head simultaneously. Is that really your biggest complaint? Have you worked all twelve steps? How long did you spend in that horrible place?
Fortunately I only spent 6 months in AA and I figured out pretty quickly that the steps were useless as a method for staying abstinent. My biggest complaint besides the legitimate one above is that being told you are powerless is a no starter. Contrast that to SMART Recovery where self empowerment is a primary teaching. I also got tired of being told that abstinence was not enough. Abstinence is in fact exactly the same thing as sobriety. I don't have to consider my self as being "in recovery" for the rest of my life. I declared victory over my addiction. I don't have to make a tentative one day at a time approach. Once I stopped I decide not to drink for the rest of my life. The mutually exclusive concepts of faking it and rigorous honesty are just the tip of the iceberg of contradictory attitudes one learns in AA. The other really loopy idea is trying to shame people for being angry. It is okay to be angry. When we are violated anger is an appropriate emotion to fell and act on. In AA it the word anger becomes an accusation and it is used to shut people down. Within AA any questioning of dogma is said to be a symptom of being a "dry drunk." The term dry drunk is an oxymoron. The other way they discourage anything that deviates from 12 step dogma is to accuse you of "stinking thinking. If you want to read the stories of how AA fails for so many I invite you to read the blog called Stinkin-thinkin. http://stinkin-thinkin.com/why-i-left-aa-stinkin-thinkin-stories/#comment-9044
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAMong other things that blog sponsors a radio program and has videos on youtube.
BTW I was half way out of the church basement door already, but when I found the Orange Papers online I was instantly validated in my belief that I did not need AA to remain sober. That web site and the stinkin-thinkin blog are playing that same role for countless other people.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.orange-papers.org/
Self empowerment for sobriety:
http://www.smartrecovery.org/
You know, I understand your anger, and I'm sorry you had a difficult time in AA. I'm also very glad you found an alternative to substance abuse.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI also understand the seeming contradictions of which you speak, and some people can be very rigid in their approach to this solution. That hasn't been by experience. Life is chock full of paradoxes; I am always intrigued when I bump up against one of them.
But the twelve steps of are a solution for millions and millions of people around the world, including me.
You sound like one of those people who had a bad experience and now have determined that AA is bad for you and therefore its bad for everybody. You may be abstinent, and for the sake of semantics, which you seem to put a high value on, you may be sober. But you must also be angry and resentful and bitter to talk against something you DO NOT UNDERSTAND as often as you do. Let me know how that works out for you.
Yes AA members love to say that people who are critical must have anger and resentment. I know in AA circles such an accusation will stop people in their tracks, but in the real world it is okay to be angry. I am going to paste something from that blog that states so well the AA vs. anger thing:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Why are you so angry?
This question always cracks me up because it’s so unselfaware . You know, anger is a healthy human emotion that serves as a fundamental, necessary survival mechanism. It spurs people to leave abusive relationships, for instance. To fight for their lives. It is also the fire that inspires change in this world. Were it not for anger, we would not have a civil rights movement; without anger, no one would be fighting for marriage equality.
Anger is the correct response to the violation of one’s personal boundaries and integrity. Therefore, you will see a lot of anger here. Unapologetic anger.
In AA, there is a freaky taboo against feeling anger, and probably for good reason – as far as the program itself is concerned. If I were going to develop my own version of The Borg, the first thing I’d do is make the normal emotional response to personal violation shameful.
So, two things: 1. Yeah, many of us are angry. Some of our friends here have spent a considerable chunk of their lives working the program, and they are angry at what they’ve lost, and they finally have permission to be angry. They can be angry here. 2. Accusations of anger fall on bemused ears here, because outside of AA, people are allowed to be angry. You’re not going to be able to shame us with that, the same way that you shame each other. We just think, “Yeah, and…?”
If you genuinely want to know why we’re angry, and expressing it, I’ll tell you that it’s because many of us have wasted years and years being shamed by the likes of you, with your taboos that violate human nature. So, you know, you might as well tell it to the gas pipe, or your next vict… um, pigeon.
http://stinkin-thinkin.com/faqrs/
"If it doesn’t work for you, then go somewhere else, but don’t attack something that works for so many people.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirst of all, are you seriously telling us what we should be doing? That’s a little presumptuous, don’t you think? We’ve got a bug up our butts and we’re not afraid to use it. How about, instead of telling us what to write about, you go somewhere else and read stuff that doesn’t appall you? Second of all, incidentally, we are a supportive group, but this is not a support board. We are about the business of Recovery Reform. It is “broke,” and it needs fixed. You’re not going to fix it, are you? We’re making some noise. I’m sure the Muzak is still playing the dayroom."
Let's review. I infer from your writing that you are angry. I make the observation that you are angry based upon what you have written, and you become angrier because I had the audacity to suggest that you are angry.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy the hell should you care if I say you're angry? Do you invest that much power in what others say to you or about you? THAT'S not very healthy.
Look, we all have anger. I have anger. I am angry about the first time my mom slapped me across the face with an open palm. I carry anger from all the slights, perceived or real, all the injustices, the injuries, etc. from that slap right up to today, when I read about someone spreading ignorance about the solution to my drinking problem.
Anger is thirsty work. I drank because I needed relief from my anger. I didn't know how to deal with it any other way after a while. The steps help me deal with that anger in many ways, ways that have worked for me for over eight years.
And you're right; anger is a very healthy emotion. There are just very unhealthy ways of expressing it. Once again, I am sorry for your bad experience, but in those eight years I have been to thousands of meetings all over the country, and I have only been to maybe five or ten where I've heard one or two nut jobs speak the way you describe about anger. or anything else about the program.
And the fellowship is NOT the program. The twelve steps, as outlined in the Big book of Alcoholics Anonymous is the program. And there are millions more people sober through the twelve steps of AA than that tiniest fraction of miscreants and malcontents who adhere to the cult of orange and stinkin' thinking.
You have every right to say what you want. I have every right to counter it and tell you you sound angry and bitter.
MDMA research controversy:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thismaps.org/mdma/studyresponse.html
you "probably" shouldn't have included it in your list of neurotoxic drugs.
and Sally Satel, for readers who may be unacquainted with the American Enterprise Institute and its far-right politics, is perhaps not the ideal person to interview on the subject of this article for this particular publication.
further reading of dr. satel provides invaluable context:
"Who needs medical ethics?"
sallysatelmd.com/html/a-comm1.html
"Why We Need a Market for Human Organs"
online.wsj.com/article/SB121089708343197205.html
and
"incorporating social justice into the mission of medicine diverts attention and resources from the effort to prevent and combat disease for everyone."
I used drugs to dull my anxiety and pain at one time in my life and didn't even realize I was doing just that. I know it is possible to stop using as I did 20 years ago. I grew tired of the lies, the delusions and watching my friends die and lying to myself and those around me. Nobody is going anywhere fast when they are addicted to coke except down. This includes the "Charlie Sheens" of life. He may be famous but infamous is more likely with his denial.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would hope that his father Martin his and his brother step in to lock him down because he is 100% dilusional and / or manic. He is making a fool of himself. I believe the addiction gene is pretty clear in this instance. It's nothing to be ashamed of but why hasn't any family member locked him up and prevented a public embarrassment.
I hope that the Charlie Sheens of the world understand that their drug induced reality is not the norm. When your rantings and raving drug induced state seems to be so right at the time ITS NOT. It sounds crazy and people cannot relate.
I don't know what else to say except Charlie needs to clean up in a far away place and get back to basics. Perhaps a good cause can help his worry like stopping the US from supplying guns to Mexico so innocent people don't die from his drug addiction.
Okay lets review: you say I have resentments and anger. I say yes, and....?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy opinion that the 12 steps are a waste of words is validated everyday on the stinkin thinkin blog. We get new people all the time who thank us for being there to validate that it was not them who failed, but rather the 12 steps that failed them. That and my own observations and experiences is what informs my unapologetic anger. Myself and the ST community are channeling that anger in a constructive and effective way.
"Myself and the ST community are channeling that anger in a constructive and effective way."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, and I applaud your efforts. So why can't you let go of whatever perceived hurts and insults, real and imagined, you suffered at the hands of AA? I'm willing to bet that this isn't the first time you chimed in with negative comments about AA on some blog or other. Why can't you accept the fact that it works for some and didn't for you?
Give it a rest Ms. Martha. I really do wish you all the best, but I hope that in your journey with ST you come across the concept of forgiveness and acceptance. If one isn't capable of practicing these, there is very little chance of peace and joy in one's life. I am living proof of this.
To the extent that I resent anyone, any circumstance, or any institution I suffer,and I am trapped in that suffering, and the only way to free myself is to learn to forgive.
As an example I give you the story of Ron Goldman's Father and sister. From the moment of O.J.'s acquittal for Ron's murder back in 1992, they have been driven, by bitter anger and resentment and hatred to seek whatever legal means possible to hurt O.J., to the near exclusion of anything else it would seem. I submit to you, that they had a closer relationship with O.J. in their hate than they had with each other in love.
I can't imagine a loss as tragic as this, nor would I even know how to begin the process of forgiveness acceptance and healing. But I do know that forgiveness is the answer. No one else on the planet including and especially O.J. suffers from this hatred and bitter resentment but Ron's father and sister. No one else holds the key to their liberation. It's been almost twenty years. That's a long time to to live in misery.
How long has it been since you were humiliated and outraged by the 12 step process? How often and for how long have you been hauling out your "unapologetic anger" to massage it into a froth for all who will listen?
Actually, When we say "surrender to win", we mean in part; "give up your resentments and anger." Free yourself.
"I'm willing to bet that this isn't the first time you chimed in with negative comments about AA on some blog or other. Why can't you accept the fact that it works for some and didn't for you?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGive it a rest Ms. Martha."
Give it a rest? That ain't going to happen. And of course this is not the first time I have posted my opinions on a blog and it certainly will not be the last time I do so. This is part of a concerted effort that we coordinate openly on our own blog. We have been at it long before the Charlie Sheen episode. Our combined efforts have reached many thousands of people on many other blogs and our efforts are paying off in terms of increased traffic on that blog. The people who find us were told that failure to work the steps will result in jails, institutions or death. We tell them otherwise and direct them to non 12 step alternatives for quitting addictions.
We are far from alone in questioning the AA way:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stanton-peele/charlie-sheen_b_828891.html
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/addiction-in-society/201102/speaking-about-charlie
http://amyleecoy.com/blog/2011/02/15/wildest-dreams-come-true-outta-my-way-aa/
http://www.morerevealed.com/index.html
This is not the first time that an AA member have told us to give it a rest. Remember you are not in a meeting where you can ban "cross talk." Out here the First Amendment is in play and we simply will not go away.
I didn't tell you to shut up. I just told you of a way to be relieved of your resentment and anger at AA. Nor did I tell you or have I told anyone that there is no other way. I'm suggesting that you have misunderstood and misrepresented our message. There are tens of millions more of you than that tiny little cadre of haters on those websites you listed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut I'm done. You win. I have never met one of you anti-AAers yet who doesn't harbor a deeply felt animus toward AA, and no amount of blogging will change that.
I would wish you every happiness, but I don't think you would know what to do with it if you had it.
An evidence based method for ending addictions, The Sinclair Method:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"That is the theory and this treatment for alcoholism is called the Sinclair Method, after David Sinclair, the scientist who discovered it and who claims a 78 per cent success rate over three to four months. The measure of success is controlled drinking within normal safety limits, or abstinence.
In Finland, where Sinclair works at the National Public Health Institute, his method has become part of the mainstream treatment for alcoholism, used by 100,000 people since 1995, he estimates. In the US it is used by 2 per cent of doctors who treat alcoholism. In the UK, however, naltrexone is licensed for the treatment of heroin addiction but not alcoholism (though it is available on private prescription) and Mrs M, who lives in Scotland, is fortunate to have an enlightened doctor who has sought permission to use it to treat alcohol problems for about 50 carefully selected patients over the past ten years."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article5484285.ece
I think it definately depends on the drug for one. You can stop your addiction to coke/crack without detox. Its not a physically dependant drug. Its all mental. So, cutting ties with people you used with or bought from, would be a good first step. This is only my opinion based on my experiences. Heroin (opiates), Alcohol and Benzos you can NOT detox from on your own. Those are all physically dependant drugs. You go through horrible withdrawals. Please, if you are trying to stop using any of those, especially Alcohol and Benzos, go to detox or you can die from the withdrawals. Basically, you can NOT cure yourself from ALL drugs.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis discussion is very interesting and informative in a way which I am sure was not intended by many of those who have contributed. It demonstrates once again just how little we know about psychoactive drugs, addiction, and recovery. People have been having many of these same arguments for centuries. Yes, today we know far more about pharmacology and the brain than did, say, Dr. Benjamin Rush when he posited that chronic "inebriation" (the term "alcoholism" was not yet coined) was a disease in the late 1700eds. But this discussion demonstrates several very important things: the use of psychoactive drugs can be fraught with terrible danger for some. What we glibly term "mis-use and addiction" is very costly to society. And most important, we don't know how to deal with it very well.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSpeaking as a retired addictions counselor, college professor in chemical dependency counseling, and person in recovery for more than forty years I hasten to say that I know far less about this problem than many of you who have posted here. I do know that many compelling theories about and "sure cures" for addiction have come along in just my time of involvement with the problem. Very few have stood the test of time.
I think that it is more or less safe to say that I have come to believe a few things about this subject. The reasons for use, the compulsion in some to use to the point of self destruction, and the inability of many to stop that kind of use may be so complex that we will never have a complete understanding. It seems to me that, rather than there being a "disease" that we can call "addiction", there are as many syndromes as there are people who suffer from them; each is individual. Granted, there are many characteristics that seem pretty common but each person affected is affected in their own, unique way.
By the same token each of us who recovers does so in our own unique way.
The 12 step programs have worked for far more people than any other program but I suspect that most who try them do not stay in program. Many succeed on their own; many try everything and still die using. Each of us who do recover must find our own way, even in a ridged program. We can learn from others and that is the foundation, I think, for any recovery, but we must eventually invent our own sober lifestyle.
I also have come to believe that stopping using is only the precursor to recovery. Learning to cope successfully with whatever problems that may have caused us to become addicted in the first place is recovery and can lead to a truly wonderful life.
Libby & Stone, orthomolecular psychiatry 1977:6(4): 300-308 temporarily cured 30 out of 30 hard drug addicts of several types. They believed that ascorbic acid went to the same brain locations as the drugs and that ascorbate apparently displaced the drugs and sobered up some patients in about an hour. They daily gave 25 to 85 grams, yes grams, of sodium ascorbate in milk plus other supplements and protein. After a few days, the doses were reduced. Temporary cure resulted in about a week-patients were able to talk, think, and sleep naturally. After a day on the ascorbate, they often had no desire for a hit. Cure was temporary because patients could be followed for only a month, and cause of addiction was not addressed. They found no withdrawal pains from suddenly stopping the drugs. This had been demonstrated for cancer patients by Cameron & Baird, Letters to Editor, J International Research Comm. 1973:1(6): 33
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLooking at this in retrospect, it seems possible that this was all just a publicity stunt. Perhaps he was tired of 2 1/2 men and was looking for an out. Now he's back on a new show and apparently stronger than ever.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't believe the addiction thing when it comes to celebs. It's all about stocking real-life drama and getting attention.
It is not as much a brain injury tat a metabolic disorder that contributes to drug addiction. Most drug addicts have been found to be hypoglycemic (http://www.hypoglycemia.asn.au/2011/what-is-hypoglycemia/).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease read:
Drug Addiction is a Nutritional Disorder at:
http://www.hypoglycemia.asn.au/2011/drug-addiction-is-a-nutritional-disorder/