Texas Drug Rehabs



There have been many people that have tried to discredit Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) and other 12-step programs for many years. Lately there is another attempt, using the some old argument that there are "professionals" and medications that have proven to be more effective. Let's examine that tenet and see what their definition of "effective" is and how they support their contentions.

The latest of these attacks came out in the April edition of "The Atlantic" magazine. The article is written by Gabrielle Glaser, who is the author of another book on recovery entitled: "Her Best-Kept Secret: Why Women Drink---And How They Can Regain Control". The title of the piece is: "The False Gospel of Alcoholics Anonymous". Needless to say, those are emotionally charged words that are meant to arouse controversy.

The subtitle of Ms. Glaser's article is: "Its faith-based 12-step program dominates treatment in the United States. But researchers have debunked central tenets of AA doctrine and found dozens of other treatments more effective". You can read my examination of her article at this site link.

Everyone that is or has been involved in AA should read Ms. Glaser article but you must keep in mind that her contention about a successful outcome is someone that is taking naltrexone, a psychiatric drug that has been marketing in this field under many pretenses that have all proven to be less that their claims. Just as the pharmaceutical industry said that heroin and valium are not addictive, they will claim whatever lies they need to get the sales and profits they expect.

Much of my argument is spelled out in the above mentioned link, but I would like to bring the main points to your attention before lives are lost and suffering is embellished by another article that goes against AA and 12-step recovery. Notice that I call it "Recovery" and not "Treatment". That is the key word in all of these articles of attack on AA. When I started my career in this field, nearly 40-years ago, there was a great demand to do something therapeutically with those that were abusing themselves with alcohol and other drugs, usually it was opiates of cocaine, in those days.

There was a vacuum of service for anything that could be labeled treatment and so private business began to open "treatment centers" throughout the country. These centers had no idea what they were going to do to have a real therapeutic impact on addiction, so they turned to the only thing that was working; AA. Against the demands of AA's authors, it was never supposed to be institutionalized and it was never to be considered treatment. These wise men knew how quickly their self-help program would be made ineffective if is were to be part of the "treatment" regime. However, since there were no laws to protect others from taking a program that has been given to the public to help at no cost, the profiteers took the principles of AA and brought them into their treatment centers while hiring many of the lay-counselors that had recovered with AA to be their "therapist."

I don't Know if anyone ever questioned the ethics of this move, but anyone could quickly see that it wasn't working. So, how did they keep making money? They kept repeating that alcoholism and drug addiction are chronic and progressive diseases. Meaning that they are similar to diabetes. You never get well and you will need to continue having episodes of residential or inpatient treatment for much of your remaining life. (That is a pretty bitter pill to swallow)

We have learned a great deal since the 1970 and 80s, and thank goodness, these centers, such as Charter Hospital and The Care Unit have all closed and most have claimed bankruptcy to avoid as much responsibility as possible. Refunds should have been given to the alcoholics and addicts that had to suffer this false treatment only to return and do the same program again and again, but, of course, that didn't happen.

Here is the latest attack on 12-step programs and AA in particular. After Ms. Glaser shows that AA-type "treatment" only gets success rates in the single digits, she offers the naltrexone solution, showing how happy certain individuals are with that form of treatment, augmented by cognitive-behavioral therapy. Her article is designed to show these benefits and she is reaping the benefits, as all physicians do, in getting the perks that are available to those who support pharmaceuticals. I am sure that my argument could never convince Ms. Glaser of her error since she also used naltrexone to help her with her undisclosed drinking problem. This is conjecture, but when you read the article, you will see how she used the drug to experience a reduction in cravings. To do so, one would first have to have cravings.

Here is the common sense rebuttal to this argument that naltrexone or any other drug can cure or even successfully help a problem of someone being addicted to other chemicals. The only way to find your total emotional and spiritual freedom and creativity is to be as chemical free as possible. All psychiatric drugs take away some to all of the natural stimulus and responses that has made us such creative human beings. We are not a bag of chemicals that are fueling a large piece of meat, but we are spiritual beings that are operating through our bodies. This is much more spiritual and/or religious than psychiatry will ever allow, but if you study the facts, this is who we are.

Those who become addicted are looking for the joy of life from using chemicals that have been shown to imitate one's natural highs in life. We now have the "benefit" of brain scans that can show what part of the brain is reacting to what feelings and what drugs. However, this idea of the brain being the center of our "souls" is something that "science" and Eli Lilly has been trying to sell to society for years, and they are doing too good a job. It is up to the rest of us that believe differently to get the truth out.

AA is a drug-free approach to getting an addicted person back to his native state where he can feel and deal with all of the beauty and pain that is human existence. Anything short of that is heading us towards George Orwell's 1984 prediction that we can't feel or live without drugs. AA isn't the only program that is drug-free and there are treatment facilities, mainly the biophysical programs, that Ms. Glaser's research failed to mention, that are more successful than the ones using psychiatrist and naltrexone and other drugs. Take the time to do the necessary research for yourself or a loved one and you will find what you get from drug-free vs. drugged-up.

For those that are interested in more information, they can call the author of his page at and he will answer your questions