Heroin Helper Blog

dr. H, i think the 5% success rate thing hes talking about is true - though i agree ultimately with your response.

correct me if im wrong, this is what i understand to be the reason/story behind the 5% success rate.

Essentially the cult that is AA at some point i think in the early to mid 80s or early to mid 90s, either someone IN AA that WAS ALSO a major political player OR a major political guy with an interest in AA's success wanted to develop research based stats on what he thought and believed would be the astronomical success rate of AA. Due to the anonymous nature of AA, doing the kind of research he wanted to do would be difficult, but his ambitions were vast, essentially by having some hard, physical, credible evidence as to AA's "certain" tremendous results, he could further push the AA agenda and dogma, one would only assume if this would've been successful we would know all about it as it would no doubt be one of their favorite pieces of propaganda.

What happened next is the project, and due to the anonymous nature of AA, the concept of relapse etc. it was kind of difficult for the guy and his people to get a grasp on how to go about doing this research, nevertheless, a formula was decided upon and i am not sure the amount of years but i think that its a result of the whole relapse thing, i.e, clearly they wanted the results to show great things about AA, so, i would assume that these pieces of garbage would go about their business go to an AA meeting study prospects perhaps identifying those "Johnny Go With God" types and other AA Nazi's, they get in touch, Johnny Go With God is such a tool and AA mark that he head over heels agrees, but since we all know AA is wrong, their philosophy is wrong and bottom line they are a dangerous organization, at the three year mark of the research perhaps when the team is ready to call Johnny Go With God for the annual chat about how sober he is, they cant find him. After two months they've located him and he's got to "Start his time over" lol. I think one of the reasons the research must have taken as long as it did was because of the perpetual relapse of alot of their most promising subjects, i think, if those subjects would have ultimately recovered say after 8 years of relapsing, they would've said it was a 100% success, and just swept "relapse" under the carpet as a "symptom" if you will.

So ultimately what happened is, ive heard the number was over 20 million that was thrown into this project. Charlie Sheen's number is 2% higher than I was told when I heard this. I heard the success rate that was discovered by this was actually 3% and the final report embarassing as it would basically say stuff about how AA was WORSE for a person etc. the thing about it was that i guess the researchers ultimately were less bias then hoped or maybe they just couldn't make the factual statistics pretty at all I dont know. I think however that because of the person who spearheaded this project and i think because of his visions for AA i think he was able to convince the powers that be to maybe bend some of their sacred rules for the sake of whatever sick thing they are into.

Something I say to people all the time is, isn't it funny how AA and all of its marks act like 10 year old spoiled children when they are told things they don't like or are shown they are wrong etc? The defensiveness is akin to a boy or girl who is just dipping their toes into puberty. Then the whole slew of "I'm never wrong, you always are" catch phrases they throw around at things that disprove what they say only further goes to show the outlandish childishness of the cult. I mean, this is the foundation for the detoxes and treatments and rehabs and millions and billions of wasted time and money. It's unbelievably disgusting.

so obviously the research was an astronomical failure and probably ensured nothing like it would be done again but thats what i think Charlie Sheen is citing. I'm not 100% but thats what I understand to be the case, the 1 and only time AA authorized research into it's success rates in hopes of expanding its sick dogma. But if you find out the 100% facts behind it, please correct me!

@CJ - When I saw the top of your comment I freaked out and added an update. It didn't even occur to me that people would have thought I was saying that the 5% number was too HIGH, but that is the obvious reading. I'm pleased that your number is the same as I recall.

AA has always been very resistant to any measurement of their program. There has only been one study as far as I know. Over 6 months, I believe the "recovery" rate was about one-third. But this was the same as those not in the program. More important, the length of relapse was something like 5 times longer for people in the program. The reason seems pretty clear to me: when you tell people they are powerless and they have to depend upon the group, you infantilize them so they make worse decisions when they aren't in the group. What's more, if you know you're going to have to go to the group and go through the whole shaming process, you might as well enjoy yourself for as long as possible.

AA plays a semantic game. IF you go to meetings regularly and IF you get a good sponsor and IF you work the steps and IF and IF and IF, THEN you will stay sober. But this is more or less the same thing as saying IF you don't use drugs THEN you won't use drugs. There is no way to show that AA is ineffective because it is NEVER the program's fault that someone fails but it is ALWAYS the program's credit that someone succeeds.

What's worse, AA members are derisive of people who get sober without it. They are "dry drunks." This more than anything is why I consider AA a cult. You would think the purpose of AA was to get people off drugs, but that's not true. It is to make them into Good People.

I don't have a problem with people who want to use AA. Whatever floats your boat! The problem is how AA is forced on people in all rehab contexts. If you go to a program to do hybrid antagonist therapy, they combine it with 12 step meetings. This is like combining laser eye surgery with leech bloodletting.

AA gave up any pretense at being a helpful organization when they got into bed with the legal system. At most meetings, 80% of the people are there because they have to be. Signing of forms makes the whole thing distinctly non-anonymous. The DEA should put up billboards: "Do a drug, join a cult. It's the law!"

Another problem with AA is its zero tolerance policy. If a man feels he is drinking too much and so reduces his intake by half, he's succeeded. But by AA's definition--and thus the society's--he is an utter failure. That's really helpful to people trying to improve their lives.

"AA plays a semantic game. IF you go to meetings regularly and IF you get a good sponsor and IF you work the steps and IF and IF and IF, THEN you will stay sober. But this is more or less the same thing as saying IF you don't use drugs THEN you won't use drugs. There is no way to show that AA is ineffective because it is NEVER the program's fault that someone fails but it is ALWAYS the program's credit that someone succeeds."

That really says it all. Your whole comment hit the nail on the head. I think the ego dismantling nature of AA/NA plays a large part in its ineffectiveness. As you said, infantilizing people, teaching and conditioning them to think and feel that they are powerless, will only increase dependancy on the group. That being said, I also think that making them feel powerless, which also absolves them of taking responsibility, makes them more susceptible to relapse while they are still taking part in the program.

AA/NA really has a strange structure in more than one way. For the people that really take it seriously, it seems to replace their drug dependancy with a dependancy on the group and the 12 Steps.

The first time I went to an AA or NA meeting was around the first time I tried to clean up. At the time I was attempting to maintain with buprenorphine, and I was required (like I am on MMT) to attend drug-related support group meetings in order to achieve takeout status. I knew nothing about NA other than a very vague notion of what the 12 Steps were compromised of, and I knew nothing about the etiquette or culture of the group.

During the meeting I listened to this guy talk about his girlfriend, who was using Suboxone to maintain. He was deriding her for her use of Suboxone, as well as criticizing the Suboxone program in general. He spoke with all the usual rhetoric you hear from 12 Step advocates regarding maintenance drugs. You know the spiel: "You're not REALLY clean if you're on one of those drugs." "You're gonna hafta kick it sometime or another." Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Apparently, as you rightly pointed out, they don't take into consideration that maintenance drugs are there for those who are trying to IMPROVE their lives. When it came my turn to speak I told him that I was also on the SMP and that it's not hurting if it's helping her improve her standard of living. To his credit he came up to me and apologized after the meeting. After that, however, I felt a distinct change in the group's attitude towards me. They most certainly harbor some resentment for those using maintenance drugs.

I think Patrick Kroupa really says it best: "Most of the 12-step programs have turned into something that nearly resembles an interesting parody of what they originally were--extremely old eastern concepts for dismantling ego, specifically rewritten to apply to drug-dependent individuals who are acclimated to western culture. They have become this cult of eternal powerlessness, where you can participate in a never-ending circle-jerk of sitting around and complaining about things; fight an endless battle against a mysterious disease and never again take any chemical additives or personal responsibility for your actions. Okay, having said that, let's all go out into the parking lot and chain smoke, drink coffee and eat candy bars..."

@mack - This is great! I should set up a place where we can all meet for one big AA bitch session.

I think the big problem everyone has with the program is the hubris of the true believers. It would be one thing if it were just their thing, but it's not; it has to be your thing as well.

I'm surprised that when you mentioned the girlfriend they didn't tell you there was no cross talk. That's another thing that bugs me about the meetings: they aren't even bitch sessions because there isn't the catharsis of true personal contact. In fact, I've never felt a personal connection with anyone at a meeting that I hadn't gone to the meeting with.

What you've said about their attitude regarding maintenance drugs is very true. It is another sign that the program is not about what it claims. Of course, that is why MMT is quantifiably effective despite its many failings.

As for the AA/NA thing, it is ridiculous. There's AA, NA, CA, and just about anything else. Is there any doubt there is an Ecstasy Anonymous somewhere? So I just say AA or 12 step program.

Patrick always makes me want to use because I know I'll never be as cool as he is. And he's a decent guy too.

(NOTE: DR. H! I so thoroughly enjoyed reading this all and this discussion that I very excitedly replied, finding I had so very much to say and ask and incredibly for the first time in ages, wrote a whole bunch!! I thoroughly apologize up front for how much I wrote but I very thoroughly enjoyed the blogs and discussion and had so much to say and ask and mention that I wrote a ton. I apologize and I truly truly hope its okay with you and you dont mind. So I just wanted to mention it up front that I was inspired by the blog and discussion that I wrote so much it needed to be posted in two posts. I hope I haven't upset you Dr. H by writing that much but your an inspiration and I explain why the community is an inspiration in my post as well. thanks!!!)

Dr. H!! God I love reading this stuff about AA. This is excellent - I remember quite a few times, you know those days (I understand your current disposition with regards to lets call it bayer brand relief, lol) when you are having that nirvana-esque experience of freedom from pain thanks to that Bayer inspired relief, yet some uncanny fool who is not of the enlightened lot that enjoy bayer products has to go and ruin it for you? Well I remember a few times these bayer haters found a way to upset me and knowing what I know about the cult of AA i would seek out articles, discussions, to no avail - just like the one we're having now.

(Note!: Before I go on, I want to say I've just returned to the top of this paragraph after writing a bit and I realized theres something really important that I'd like to get your take on that I realized after I wrote this next paragraph!)
The reason is because I know just how incredibly important what we're saying is. Dr. H there are so many people who want to hear our perspective and assume and convince themselves of the worst when they're unable to find this information. They consider AA in the ways we're discussing. They'd like to know more though and when the worst happens their inability to learn more about, what I will personally call the truth of the matter, makes them think they were wrong and they unfortunately accept the alternative.

I mean, I guess it'd be safe to say I'm speaking from a painful experience here but essentially at one point a group of friends and I who were pleasantly living in our subculture had may dicussions about AA, discussions that featured alot of the little dialogue we're having here. Eventually, as is often the case, unforseeable (sp) things with prohibition intruded upon our little utopia and some of these friends, and surely we all know friends come and go in this world, were put into circumstances with little to no choices. The reason it saddens me is because as I'd said, people come and people go, one minute they're their, the next day disappear forever - or, Higher Power forbid (lol) dead. The rare thing is to find people you can truly consider a friend, I mean, that doesn't steal anything from you, doesn't lie to you about prices, doesn't "drop" bayer bottles from point A to point B and of course the lot that was dropped would've otherwise been yours. It was regrettable that true friends, who had true instincts about AA but when they needed references to support their opinions and beliefs, they couldn't find any and would go on to be overwhelmed by that horrible dogma.

Dr. H! Ok, check this out, I'd really like to hear your thoughts about this - and wondering if you know anything about this. I realize I can be long winded, i apologize. I thoroughly enjoy what I read here and, as I've mentioned before, I tried to become active in online reform but was so disappointed to encounter outrageous pot elitism. I remember posting stuff once on a site that claims in title and in mission statement to be about drug reform but is 99% pot related in content and viewer comments - I remember asking, after writing about the flagrant pot elitism, "hey I wonder if blablabla dot com is still gonna be around if pot is legalized." And experiencing tons of abuse, Bayer hatred etc. It prompted me to say that I'd gotten involved in online reform for a sense of belonging, only to find division akin to that which exists in my daily life between me and the police.

OK so my question/comment that I'd gotten excited about - OK, so Dr. H, about 2 years ago, you know the deal, homeless, penniless etc. I was living in an abandoned warehouse with several friends, close friends, like minded. Quick side note, this abandoned warehouse had copper wiring coming out of the ceiling and walls. The warehouse was completely abandoned and as large as a mansion btw. The copper wiring was everywhere. My friends and I collected it and traded it in to scrap yard for money i just wanted to say we got to ACTUALLY be REAL junkies! lol. (Dr. H, for those who dont know about why Junkies were called Junkies, you can explain)
ok so things happened, arrests happened etc. I've learned plenty from your book and I've mentioned before that I had essentially had to dare the DA into sending me to prison, absolutely under no circumstances in my opinion (and im NOT a lawyer but an experienced, multi time arrested opiate enthusiast) should you ever accept drug court or anything of the such - EVER. in my opinion, do the time, get out on good behavior, get big brother out of your life as quickly as you can. Anyway, there was a period of months as the court dates were being postponed (they were trying to get me on felony charges so the DA kept postponing the date to calculate the exact weight of residue - it amounted to 3 postponments (sp) ) during these months I'd been ordered to essentially submit to drug tests by this govt organization that works for the courts, its the group that deals with you when you refuse drug court - i forget, anyway. But my family and girlfriend at the time, in all discussing this, I mean, they were finally willing to stop being ignorant (my father is a 26 year AA veteran with no relapses in that time, that should explain everything about that, lol) I explained to them that the only treatment that I knew would work was proper opiate substition. NOT the horrible, dispicable, absolutely outrageous waste of time methadone and WORSE buprenorphine and EVEN WORSE naloxone. Long discussions ensued and thankfully they were just that - DISCUSSIONS - and essentially after finding lots of literature - the NAOMI and SALOME stuff, literature from Europe, lots of wonderful information, my father, addled with the torrid, horrible illness called AA adherance, totally agreed and im quite proud of him for going off on several of his AA friends and his traditional drug counselor styled family therapist on my behalf saying stuff like "every other so called problem has more than one way of being dealt with, why not this!!" bravo. So I'd spoken with several people, and for the safety of the innocent here lets just say they were able to find a doctor who was a veteran of "addiction medicine" US born and raised and completely agreed with the European style and on his own accord in his own practice treats people that way, regardless of laws. I'd tried to arrange an appointment with this doctor on several occassions and actually got into horrific cursing matches with the secretary - i found out later that its because the doctor is heavily guarded.

Since that didn't work, me and my family essentially came to the conclusion that I needed to find someone else that would do this. My search began. Now many times Dr. H i'd joked with friends about an AA group that functioned in the precise OPPOSITE way of AA as in the exact opposite ideology. In practice, one of this kind of groups "interventions" would look like this - you and your friends would decide a certain friend not present had been sober for several weeks, you'd be concerned and would secretly arrange a meeting. The sober friend arrives and is bombarded by all of you who go on to express your concern at his sobriety and demand he indulge in Bayer excellence right then and there or risk ex-communication from the circle of friends until he gets his life together and ends his sobriety.

This fictional organization we'd joke about - I'd often talk to lots of people about it and eventually the subject matter went from light hearted joke to serious idea. At one point, while being forced into some sort of program or what have you a fellow coerced person and I discussed this and he told me that it was already in existence - INDEED - there was already and is already a philosophy and practice just as I'd spoken of! I was told it was called "moderates anonymous" - long story short, I tried very hard to find out about this and it took some time, I didnt find anything at first and figured the guy was wrong or misinformed but eventually i did - the name i'd been given was slightly off. Infact the group is "Moderation Maintenance" an alternative philosophy and practice created by a gentleman mr. Dr. Andrew Tartarsky - who operates his own site, has published some material and has a psychology practice. OK, so I emailed him. I told him of my very specific plight and very specific needs. He wrote me back, saying that he agreed and understood AND that he could recommend me to psychiatrists who could help me in my unique way! I suggested a meeting he asked if I'd want to make an appointment or if I would rather just be given the contacts, I said no, lets meet after all I did find his Moderation Maintenance (anti AA group) and its philosophy facinating. He sent me a price and an appointment time - my family completely wanted me 100% to achieve the goal of getting the kind of treatment we discussed and said they would 100% support my efforts to get the treatment. Fiscally as well. The pricetag for the appointment was very high, something I've never seen or dealt with in psychology but I figured at that level and considering my ambitions, it was understandable. The meeting went well, he was a gentleman and I must say, he was very versed in the status quo and very good at explaining where the status quo is horribly wrong and how it needs to change. He knew alot of the organizations and a few of the people I'd encountered in "the system" and when I mentioned the doctor who I was unable to get an appointment with - without me prompting anything - he told me exactly what I'd heard about, confirming that indeed said doctor does the things I was told and that the success rates are outstanding. He told me about how heavily said doctor is and thus why I was met with such resentment by the secretary. Ultimately I thought his Moderation Maintenance concept was outstanding - I mean, very interesting. UNFORTUNATELY, ultimately, and this is very strange - you see, when I initially wrote him I told him very very specifically what I endeavored to do and what I very very specifically would not do and that means I do not want methadone, buprenorphine, naloxone - I could get those at anytime, properly and legally, have done them all before in years of ignorance - multiple times, especially methadone. He seemed to understand this point as well and obviously told me things that lead me to have a certain understanding of what we were going to do. Nevertheless, he essentially wanted to have me become a regular patient of his (hes only a psychologist, not psychiatrist) and recommended me to a suboxone doctor - lol. I sat their stunned, feeling sort of lied to and tricked and angered that I'd just wasted alot (in my opinion) of someone elses money. Nevertheless, I never saw or spoke to him again BUT he was a cool guy and Dr. H i would really like to know what you think of his stuff, like, his MM philosophy and all. Have you ever heard of Moderation Maintenance or this Dr. Tartarsky? I think you would enjoy some of his blog.

@CJ - The only thing that offends me is apathy. Please continue. I think you add a great deal to the site. I've been thinking that I need to increase the size of the font because the comments (not just yours) are really excellent.

I do, however, think more people would read your comments if you tightened your prose. I still think you have the potential to write this generation's "On the Road." And I'll always read your stuff. But most people are intimidated by walls of text.

It is sad that in the drug legalization world, there are still in-group/out-group politics. The weird thing is that all the stuff said about heroin used to be said about cannabis. These people have learned that they were wrong about cannabis but can't see the broader context and the fact that they are misinformed about opioids.

One commenter wrote, "You're right weed users would sell out other users. Because other users steal stuff and harm society." Typical.

Another comment I really like (hated) had to do with that poor woman who spent 14 months on a trumped up murder charge. He wrote, "She was a prostitute and a drug suplier [sic]. So she deserved 14 months atleast [sic]. Both the drugs and the paid sex gave the man a heart attack, which killed him. Doesnt [sic] matter if he has a condition or not what she did was illegal and he died. That makes her partly responsible for his death." (Note: he was even wrong on the basic facts.) What this says to me is that these people lack empathy and for whatever reason want to "get" those they consider on the outside.

Even with all of this, I try to remain respectful. My use of the term "cannabis" is out of respect for the drug's history and not wanting to yield to the racialized propaganda surrounding it. I just wish they all would return the favor.

Good for your dad. Another sign that AA is a cult is how it is the one and only way to God (sobriety). Most people in the program do NOT have the attitude of your father that it works for them but not for everyone. They have the attitude that it is the ONLY way and hence the whole "dry drunk" myth to disqualify all those other people who get sober without the 12 steps.

Your idea of reverse-AA reminds me of the Futurama episode where his friends are trying to convince Bender to start drinking again because sobriety was killing him. When I first stopped using, a friend was greatly concerned, "You haven't found God, have you!?" After I assured him I hadn't, he was fine.

I hadn't heard of Andrew Tatarsky before, thanks for the tip. I'm going to do some research. I'm much more positive towards MMT and Buprenorphine than you are. In fact, I am friends with a long-time opioid addict who gets Buprenorphine (without the Naloxone) and it has transformed his life. The key to any of these routes is to have a provider who isn't going to make your life hell. One guy tells me that the MMT program he's on requires that he attend AA meetings. This is outrageous!

I see the problem with a doctor prescribing, say, injectable Morphine Sulfate. The DEA will take his license and that will be the end of helping anyone. On the other hand, I understand where you're coming from. Several years ago, I had a major medical problem and I had a doctor who was being stingy with the pain meds. WTF?! I could go out on the street and buy H from a dealer, but I had to lick this doc's ass to get properly treated?

But as I said, I will look into Tatarsky. He might make a good interview.

hey Dr. H, it's been a very busy week but I take your advice very highly, and thank you for the "On The Road" compliment! It meant alot! Thank you very much, I understand what you said about apathy but I'll dispel some junkie prejudices for a moment and be honest - lol - ( ;) just kidding around! well... kind of ;) ) and let you know that I had been a bit nervous because - well, im kind of relatively new to the internet and still learning..forgive the nerdiness of this but "proper internet etiquette" and i recalled writing a passionate piece on a message board once and it was long and id returned the day after writing and saw tons of responses - I was excited, thinking my passionate response to an article had ignited lots of discussion - but I was horrified to see not a single response had even a fractional mention of anything I'd written but rather an onslaught of "I didnt read a word, this is too long" and basically repetitions of that message.

So now with all apathetic mentions out, thank you again for the comments, it doees mean alot!!

I just woke up and noticed several new blogs and am eager to get to reading them but ill just say first that after reading what you said about the Futurama episode, that sounds brilliant and exactly like what I was talking about. I am going to look it up and try to watch that episode ASAP!! I look forward to it!

As for the horror stories of judges, DA's, the unjustly persecuted. My goodness... I mean, how dare anyone ridicule us for comparing our plight to those suffered by the victims of the Spanish Inquisition, Nazis, and essentially blind anger, ignorance and murderous fury imposed upon various groups of victims throughout the ages. As you so aptly put it in the Handbook, Pol Pot had the intellectuals, modern America has us.

With regards to Dr. Tartarsky, he was a really down to Earth, cool dude. If you find yourself at all interested in his blogs and work and decide to talk to him, I'm sure he'll be up for it and greet you well. He has a wealth of experience and is one of the rare voices of reason in the so called "recovery" world. It's quite funny, in that meeting I had with him, I'd mentioned how my family sought counseling at this place in Manhattan called the Freedom Institute. We both groaned in horror after I'd said it. Quite funny.

Well one other thing I'll mention that may interest you is as I've been trying to find a Dr. to work with I'd heard about, set up an appointment with but ultimately did not meet with a Dr. Julie Holland. She actually wrote a book too about her time working in the ER at Bellevue which I understand is a sorta sexy, action packed, dramatic book and is non fiction as well, lol. But the thing about Julie Holland that had me interested in seeing her is that she'd gotten several awards from reform organizations but she was one of the primary voices and forces behind a movement to legalize MDMA/E. She fights valiantly for it to this day and has actually been given the legal ability to use E in psychiatric experiments, providing E to sufferers of Post Traumatic Stress syndrome. Fascinating!

However, there are some big differences between her and Tartarsky and some quotes I'd read from her where she talks about us opiate lovers are ultimately what influenced me to not seek out her help. If you can believe it, as we've discussed the pot elitism - I think in her quotes I'd witnessed an incredible *E elitism* if you can believe it! I do enjoy MDMA, so I won't say I necessarily mind the E elitism but nevertheless, her comments about opiate users, opinions about a need for God and community for us opiate lovers, ultimately that played a big part in me deciding she was not the person I thought she was but I still give her kudos for her endeavors with legalization and E. I thought you would find her and her work interesting though I think Tartarsky may be more interesting to you of the two.

Anyway, thank you again for the compliments and I am eager to read the latest blogs!

@CJ - For the record, the episode is "I, Roommate." It is the third episode of the first seasons. It is on Netflix Instant Watch, if you have access.

I've noted before, but I don't have a direct reference, many drug users were sent to the concentration camps by the Nazis. So it isn't even like they were oppressing different people--just a wider array.

I contacted Tatarsky and we are talking. I think an interview would be mutually beneficial. I need to sit down and read a bunch of his articles.

Holland sounds like the same old thing: reasonable thinking about drugs she knows and the same old propaganda about the drugs she doesn't. Very sad.

I like "E-litism."